ArticleGenetica2015
Next generation sequencing for characterizing biodiversity: promises and challenges.
Article in Genetica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Determining diet from faeces: Selection of metabarcoding primers for the insectivore Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus).PloS one · 2018Article
- The utility of DNA metabarcoding for studying the response of arthropod diversity and composition to land-use change in the tropics.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Trophic and Non-Trophic Interactions in a Biodiversity Experiment Assessed by Next-Generation Sequencing.PloS one · 2016Article
- Sources of airborne microorganisms in the built environment.Microbiome · 2015Article
- Exploring the environmental diversity of kinetoplastid flagellates in the high-throughput DNA sequencing era.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2015Review
- Next-generation sequencing as a powerful motor for advances in the biological and environmental sciences.Genetica · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA barcoding approaches are used to describe biodiversity by analysing specimens or environmental samples in taxonomic, phylogenetic and ecological studies. While sharing data among these disciplines would be highly valuable, this remains difficult because of contradictory requirements. The properties making a DNA barcode efficient for specimen identification or species delimitation are hardly reconcilable with those required for a powerful analysis of degraded DNA from environmental samples. The use of next generation sequencing methods open up the way towards the development of new markers (e.g., multilocus barcodes) that would overcome such limitations. However, several challenges should be taken up for coordinating actions at the interface between taxonomy, ecology, molecular biology and bioinformatics in order to develop methods and protocols compatible with both taxonomic and ecological studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25613325What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.