Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30408260›Full record

SynthesisMolecular ecology2019

How quantitative is metabarcoding: A meta-analytical approach.

Philip D Lamb, Ewan Hunter, John K Pinnegar, Simon Creer, Richard G Davies, Martin I Taylor

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

51 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

6 authors.

Philip D LambSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3748-8241
Ewan HunterSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
John K PinnegarSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Simon CreerSchool of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Richard G DaviesSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Martin I TaylorSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3858-0712

Funding

Centre For Environment Fisheries And Aquaculture Science, Strategic Alliance StudentshipNatural Environment Research Council NE/L002582/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabarcoding has been used in a range of ecological applications such as taxonomic assignment, dietary analysis and the analysis of environmental DNA. However, after a decade of use in these applications there is little consensus on the extent to which proportions of reads generated corresponds to the original proportions of species in a community. To quantify our current understanding, we conducted a structured review and meta-analysis. The analysis suggests that a weak quantitative relationship may exist between the biomass and sequences produced (slope = 0.52 ± 0.34, p < 0.01), albeit with a large degree of uncertainty. None of the tested moderators, sequencing platform type, the number of species used in a trial or the source of DNA, were able to explain the variance. Our current understanding of the factors affecting the quantitative performance of metabarcoding is still limited: additional research is required before metabarcoding can be confidently utilized for quantitative applications. Until then, we advocate the inclusion of mock communities when metabarcoding as this facilitates direct assessment of the quantitative ability of any given study.

Indexed as

DietEcologyBiomassDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicSpecies Specificitybiomasshigh-throughput sequencingmeta-analysismetabarcodingnext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30408260
PMCPMC7379500

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.