ArticleFrontiers in zoology2015
Sparing spiders: faeces as a non-invasive source of DNA.
Article in Frontiers in zoology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Puke or poop? Comparison of regurgitate and faecal samples to infer alpine grasshopper (Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Metabarcoding dietary analysis in the insectivorous batBiodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Deciphering the diet of a wandering spider (Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Lizard predation by spiders: A review from the Neotropical and Andean regions.Ecology and evolution · 2020Review
- High-throughput sequencing for community analysis: the promise of DNA barcoding to uncover diversity, relatedness, abundances and interactions in spider communities.Development genes and evolution · 2020Review
- Resolving the predator first paradox: Arthropod predator food webs in pioneer sites of glacier forelands.Molecular ecology · 2019Article
- The effect of plant identity and mixed feeding on the detection of seed DNA in regurgitates of carabid beetles.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Article
- Evaluation of an automated protocol for efficient and reliable DNA extraction of dietary samples.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSpiders are important arthropod predators in many terrestrial ecosystems, and molecular tools have boosted our ability to investigate this taxon, which can be difficult to study with conventional methods. Nonetheless, it has typically been necessary to kill spiders to obtain their DNA for molecular applications, especially when studying their diet.
resultsWe successfully tested the novel approach of employing spider faeces as a non-invasive source of DNA for species identification and diet analysis. Although the overall concentration of DNA in the samples was very low, consumer DNA, suitable for species identification, was amplified from 84% of the faecal pellets collected from lycosid spiders. Moreover, the most important prey types detected in the gut content of the lycosids were also amplified from the faecal samples.
conclusionThe ability to amplify DNA from spider faeces with specific and general primers suggests that this sample type can be used for diagnostic PCR and sequence-based species and prey identification such as DNA barcoding and next generation sequencing, respectively. These findings demonstrate that faeces provide a non-invasive alternative to full-body DNA extracts for molecular studies on spiders when killing or injuring the animal is not an option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.