ArticlePloS one2019
Ideating iDNA: Lessons and limitations from leeches in legacy collections.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Invertebrate-Derived DNA Barcoding (iDNA) in Blood Sucking Leeches From West Sumatra: A Discovery of Blue-Eyed Litter FrogEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Blowfly-derived mammal DNA as mammal diversity assessment tool: Determination of dispersal activity and flight range of tropical blowflies.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- The potential of aquatic bloodfeeding and nonbloodfeeding leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation.Molecular ecology resources · 2022Article
- A new subspecies ofParasitology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indirect methods for conducting faunal inventories present great promise, and genomic inventories derived from environmental sources (eDNA) are improving. Invertebrate ingested DNA (iDNA) from terrestrial leeches in the family Haemadipsidae has shown potential for surveying vertebrates and biodiversity monitoring in protected areas. Here we present an initial, and critical, evaluation of the limitations and biases of current iDNA protocols for biodiversity monitoring using both standard and NGS barcoding approaches. Key findings include the need for taxon relevant multi-locus markers and reference databases. In particular, the limitations of available reference databases have profound potential to mislead and bias eDNA and iDNA results if not critically interpreted. Nevertheless, there is great potential for recovery of amplifiable DNA from gut contents of invertebrate museum specimens which may reveal both temporal patterns and cryptic diversity in protected areas with increased efficiency. Our analyses of ingested DNA (iDNA) from both freshly stored and previously collected (legacy) samples of terrestrial leeches successfully identified vertebrates from Myanmar, Australia and Madagascar and indicate the potential to characterize microbial communities, pathogen diversity and interactions at low cost.
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.