ArticleEcology and evolution2018
Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of occult hepatitis B infection among pregnant women in the Center Region of Cameroon: rationale for universal administration of hepatitis B birth dose vaccine.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Retrospective Molecular Detection and Characterization of PathogenicTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Environmental DNA-based RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay for on-site detection of chironomid larvae in aquatic environments.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Optimization and validation of the real-time polymerase chain reaction protocol for porcine gelatin detection in processed food and cosmetic products.Open veterinary journal · 2026Article
- American highbush cranberry maintains strong population structure despite naturalization of Eurasian relatives in North America.American journal of botany · 2025Article
- What you eat is what we need: using ants to detect spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) DNA.Pest management science · 2025Article
- Development of a SYBR Green-Based Real-Time PCR Assay to DetectTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- eDNA-Based Early Detection Illustrates Rapid Spread of the Non-Native Golden Mussel Introduced into Beijing via Water Diversion.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Detection and quantification of naturalFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Substrate and low intensity fires influence bacterial communities in longleaf pine savanna.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- First identification ofVeterinary world · 2022Article
- Molecular assays to reliably detect and quantify predation on a forest pest in bats faeces.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the performance of a multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction kit as a potential diagnostic and surveillance kit for rotavirus in Kenya.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2019Article
- Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of species in nature at very low abundance requires innovative methods. Conventional PCR (cPCR) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) are two widely used approaches employed in environmental DNA (eDNA) detection, though lack of a comprehensive comparison of them impedes method selection. Here we test detection capacity and false negative rate of both approaches using samples with different expected complexities. We compared cPCR and qPCR to detect invasive, biofouling golden mussels (
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.