Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26768195›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2016

Making environmental DNA count.

Ryan P Kelly

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ryan P KellySchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The arc of reception for a new technology or method--like the reception of new information itself--can pass through predictable stages, with audiences' responses evolving from 'I don't believe it', through 'well, maybe' to 'yes, everyone knows that' to, finally, 'old news'. The idea that one can sample a volume of water, sequence DNA out of it, and report what species are living nearby has experienced roughly this series of responses among biologists, beginning with the microbial biologists who developed genetic techniques to reveal the unseen microbiome. 'Macrobial' biologists and ecologists--those accustomed to dealing with species they can see and count--have been slower to adopt such molecular survey techniques, in part because of the uncertain relationship between the number of recovered DNA sequences and the abundance of whole organisms in the sampled environment. In this issue of Molecular Ecology Resources, Evans et al. (2015) quantify this relationship for a suite of nine vertebrate species consisting of eight fish and one amphibian. Having detected all of the species present with a molecular toolbox of six primer sets, they consistently find DNA abundances are associated with species' biomasses. The strength and slope of this association vary for each species and each primer set--further evidence that there is no universal parameter linking recovered DNA to species abundance--but Evans and colleagues take a significant step towards being able to answer the next question audiences tend to ask: 'Yes, but how many are there?'

Indexed as

DNAEcologyAnimalsDNA PrimersFishesDNADNA Primerscommunity ecologyenvironmental DNAmesocosmmetabarcodingspecies diversity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.