ArticleGigaScience2015
Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment.
Article in GigaScience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 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
52 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes Through Drone-Based Environmental DNA Sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A Multilocus Nanopore eDNA Workflow for Red Algal Diversity Assessment in an Algal Reef System.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- A DNA Barcode Inventory of Austrian Dragonfly and Damselfly (Insecta: Odonata) Species.Insects · 2025Article
- Soil eDNA reflects regionally dominant species rather than local composition of tropical tree communities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The Unseen Impacts of Human Footprints: How Land Use Reshapes Actinobacterial Communities in the Brazilian Cerrado.Biology · 2025Article
- Metabarcoding expands knowledge on diversity and ecology of rare actinobacteria in the Brazilian Cerrado.Folia microbiologica · 2025Article
- A novel taxonomic database for eukaryotic mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene (eKOI), with a focus on protists diversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Comparative mitogenomics of marine angelfishes (F: Pomacanthidae).Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Experimental evaluation of genetic variability based on DNA metabarcoding from the aquatic environment: Insights from the LerayEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Existing evidence on the use of environmental DNA as an operational method for studying rivers: a systematic map and thematic synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2024Article
- Diversity of soil faunal community as influenced by crop straw combined with different synthetic fertilizers in upland purple soil.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Global hotspots for soil nature conservation.Nature · 2022Article
- Profiling Analysis of Filter FeederInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Environmental DNA Metabarcoding: A Novel Contrivance for Documenting Terrestrial Biodiversity.Biology · 2022Review
- A review of applications of environmental DNA for reptile conservation and management.Ecology and evolution · 2022Review
- Strategies for sample labelling and library preparation in DNA metabarcoding studies.Molecular ecology resources · 2022Review
- MetaWorks: A flexible, scalable bioinformatic pipeline for high-throughput multi-marker biodiversity assessments.PloS one · 2022Article
- Comparing eDNA metabarcoding primers for assessing fish communities in a biodiverse estuary.PloS one · 2022Article
- Reinforcement of Environmental DNA Based Methods (Biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing demand for rapid biodiversity assessment tools that have a broad taxonomic coverage. Here we evaluate a suite of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers coupled with next generation sequencing (NGS) that span the tree of life, comparing them with traditional biodiversity monitoring tools within ten 20×20 meter plots along a 700 meter elevational gradient.
resultsFrom six eDNA datasets (one from each of 16S, 18S, ITS, trnL and two from COI) we identified sequences from 109 NCBI taxonomy-defined phyla or equivalent, ranging from 31 to 60 for a given eDNA marker. Estimates of alpha and gamma diversity were sensitive to the number of sequence reads, whereas beta diversity estimates were less sensitive. The average within-plot beta diversity was lower than between plots for all markers. The soil beta diversity of COI and 18S markers showed the strongest response to the elevational variation of the eDNA markers (COI: r=0.49, p<0.001; 18S: r=0.48, p<0.001). Furthermore pairwise beta diversities for these two markers were strongly correlated with those calculated from traditional vegetation and invertebrate biodiversity measures.
conclusionsUsing a soil-based eDNA approach, we demonstrate that standard phylogenetic markers are capable of recovering sequences from a broad diversity of eukaryotes, in addition to prokaryotes by 16S. The COI and 18S eDNA markers are the best proxies for aboveground biodiversity based on the high correlation between the pairwise beta diversities of these markers and those obtained using traditional methods.
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.