Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26154168›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass--Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol.

Vasco Elbrecht, Florian Leese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 198 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
198citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

198 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Biodiversity isn't measured in tons: Making sense of nature in the context of sustainable agriculture.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

138 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vasco ElbrechtDepartment of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse 150, D-44801 Bochum, Germany.
Florian LeeseDepartment of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse 150, D-44801 Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabarcoding is an emerging genetic tool to rapidly assess biodiversity in ecosystems. It involves high-throughput sequencing of a standard gene from an environmental sample and comparison to a reference database. However, no consensus has emerged regarding laboratory pipelines to screen species diversity and infer species abundances from environmental samples. In particular, the effect of primer bias and the detection limit for specimens with a low biomass has not been systematically examined, when processing samples in bulk. We developed and tested a DNA metabarcoding protocol that utilises the standard cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcoding fragment to detect freshwater macroinvertebrate taxa. DNA was extracted in bulk, amplified in a single PCR step, and purified, and the libraries were directly sequenced in two independent MiSeq runs (300-bp paired-end reads). Specifically, we assessed the influence of specimen biomass on sequence read abundance by sequencing 31 specimens of a stonefly species with known haplotypes spanning three orders of magnitude in biomass (experiment I). Then, we tested the recovery of 52 different freshwater invertebrate taxa of similar biomass using the same standard barcoding primers (experiment II). Each experiment was replicated ten times to maximise statistical power. The results of both experiments were consistent across replicates. We found a distinct positive correlation between species biomass and resulting numbers of MiSeq reads. Furthermore, we reliably recovered 83% of the 52 taxa used to test primer bias. However, sequence abundance varied by four orders of magnitudes between taxa despite the use of similar amounts of biomass. Our metabarcoding approach yielded reliable results for high-throughput assessments. However, the results indicated that primer efficiency is highly species-specific, which would prevent straightforward assessments of species abundance and biomass in a sample. Thus, PCR-based metabarcoding assessments of biodiversity should rely on presence-absence metrics.

Indexed as

BiodiversityBiomassEcosystemAnimalsDipteraDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA PrimersElectron Transport Complex IVFresh WaterHaplotypesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingOdonataPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsSpecies SpecificityDNADNA PrimersElectron Transport Complex IV

Identifiers

PMID26154168
PMCPMC4496048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.