Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30901128›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2019

Have the cake and eat it: Optimizing nondestructive DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate samples for freshwater biomonitoring.

Filipa M S Martins, Mafalda Galhardo, Ana F Filipe, Amílcar Teixeira, Paulo Pinheiro, Joana Paupério, Paulo C Alves, Pedro Beja

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Filipa M S MartinsDepartamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4191-5031
Mafalda GalhardoCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8911-1660
Ana F FilipeCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7862-2676
Amílcar TeixeiraCIMO-ESA-IPB, Centro de Investigação de Montanha, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Bragança, Portugal.
Paulo PinheiroAQUALOGUS - Engenharia e Ambiente, Lda., Lisboa, Portugal.
Joana PaupérioCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2569-0768
Paulo C AlvesDepartamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4797-0939
Pedro BejaCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8164-0760
Universidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Lisbon · PTPolytechnic Institute of Bragança · PTPortuguese Environment Agency · PT

Funding

EDP-Biodiversity ChairFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia PTDC/AAGMAA/2261/2014-POCI-1-145-FEDER-356016824Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BD/104703/2014Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 668981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding can contribute to improving cost-effectiveness and accuracy of biological assessments of aquatic ecosystems, but significant optimization and standardization efforts are still required to mainstream its application into biomonitoring programmes. In assessments based on freshwater macroinvertebrates, a key challenge is that DNA is often extracted from cleaned, sorted and homogenized bulk samples, which is time-consuming and may be incompatible with sample preservation requirements of regulatory agencies. Here, we optimize and evaluate metabarcoding procedures based on DNA recovered from 96% ethanol used to preserve field samples and thus including potential PCR inhibitors and nontarget organisms. We sampled macroinvertebrates at five sites and subsampled the preservative ethanol at 1 to 14 days thereafter. DNA was extracted using column-based enzymatic (TISSUE) or mechanic (SOIL) protocols, or with a new magnetic-based enzymatic protocol (BEAD), and a 313-bp COI fragment was amplified. Metabarcoding detected at least 200 macroinvertebrate taxa, including most taxa detected through morphology and for which there was a reference barcode. Better results were obtained with BEAD than SOIL or TISSUE, and with subsamples taken 7-14 than 1-7 days after sampling, in terms of DNA concentration and integrity, taxa diversity and matching between metabarcoding and morphology. Most variation in community composition was explained by differences among sites, with small but significant contributions of subsampling day and extraction method, and negligible contributions of extraction and PCR replication. Our methods enhance reliability of preservative ethanol as a potential source of DNA for macroinvertebrate metabarcoding, with a strong potential application in freshwater biomonitoring.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcological Parameter MonitoringFresh WaterInvertebratesMetagenomicsDNAbenthic macroinvertebratesDNA extractionDNA metabarcodingfreshwater bioassessmentpreservative ethanolWater Framework Directive

Identifiers

PMID30901128
PMCPMC6850371
OpenAlexW2942549665

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.