Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30979963›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Comprehensive biodiversity analysis via ultra-deep patterned flow cell technology: a case study of eDNA metabarcoding seawater.

G A C Singer, N A Fahner, J G Barnes, A McCarthy, M Hajibabaei

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Screening Salamanders for Symbionts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Non-Invasive Fetal K Status Prediction: 7 Years of Experience.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

G A C SingerCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8195-5479
N A FahnerCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
J G BarnesCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
A McCarthyCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
M HajibabaeiCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada. hajibabaei@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterization of biodiversity is a crucial element of ecological investigations as well as environmental assessment and monitoring activities. Increasingly, amplicon-based environmental DNA metabarcoding (alternatively, marker gene metagenomics) is used for such studies given its ability to provide biodiversity data from various groups of organisms simply from analysis of bulk environmental samples such as water, soil or sediments. The Illumina MiSeq is currently the most popular tool for carrying out this work, but we set out to determine whether typical studies were reading enough DNA to detect rare organisms (i.e., those that may be of greatest interest such as endangered or invasive species) present in the environment. We collected sea water samples along two transects in Conception Bay, Newfoundland and analyzed them on the MiSeq with a sequencing depth of 100,000 reads per sample (exceeding the 60,000 per sample that is typical of similar studies). We then analyzed these same samples on Illumina's newest high-capacity platform, the NovaSeq, at a depth of 7 million reads per sample. Not surprisingly, the NovaSeq detected many more taxa than the MiSeq thanks to its much greater sequencing depth. However, contrary to our expectations this pattern was true even in depth-for-depth comparisons. In other words, the NovaSeq can detect more DNA sequence diversity within samples than the MiSeq, even at the exact same sequencing depth. Even when samples were reanalyzed on the MiSeq with a sequencing depth of 1 million reads each, the MiSeq's ability to detect new sequences plateaued while the NovaSeq continued to detect new sequence variants. These results have important biological implications. The NovaSeq found 40% more metazoan families in this environment than the MiSeq, including some of interest such as marine mammals and bony fish so the real-world implications of these findings are significant. These results are most likely associated to the advances incorporated in the NovaSeq, especially a patterned flow cell, which prevents similar sequences that are neighbours on the flow cell (common in metabarcoding studies) from being erroneously merged into single spots by the sequencing instrument. This study sets the stage for incorporating eDNA metabarcoding in comprehensive analysis of oceanic samples in a wide range of ecological and environmental investigations.

Indexed as

BiodiversitySeawaterDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID30979963
PMCPMC6461652

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.