Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31608170›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Validation of COI metabarcoding primers for terrestrial arthropods.

Vasco Elbrecht, Thomas W A Braukmann, Natalia V Ivanova, Sean W J Prosser, Mehrdad Hajibabaei, Michael Wright, Evgeny V Zakharov, Paul D N Hebert, Dirk Steinke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed
–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

103 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improving predictions of insect harassment for barren-ground caribou in the Arctic.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  10. A Species-SpecificBiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Characterization of the OmnivorousEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  17. A new species ofZooKeys · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 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

9 authors.

Vasco ElbrechtCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Thomas W A BraukmannCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Natalia V IvanovaCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Sean W J ProsserCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Mehrdad HajibabaeiCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Michael WrightCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Evgeny V ZakharovCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Paul D N HebertCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Dirk SteinkeCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabarcoding can rapidly determine the species composition of bulk samples and thus aids biodiversity and ecosystem assessment. However, it is essential to use primer sets that minimize amplification bias among taxa to maximize species recovery. Despite this fact, the performance of primer sets employed for metabarcoding terrestrial arthropods has not been sufficiently evaluated. This study tests the performance of 36 primer sets on a mock community containing 374 insect species. Amplification success was assessed with gradient PCRs and the 21 most promising primer sets selected for metabarcoding. These 21 primer sets were also tested by metabarcoding a Malaise trap sample. We identified eight primer sets, mainly those including inosine and/or high degeneracy, that recovered more than 95% of the species in the mock community. Results from the Malaise trap sample were congruent with the mock community, but primer sets generating short amplicons produced potential false positives. Taxon recovery from both mock community and Malaise trap sample metabarcoding were used to select four primer sets for additional evaluation at different annealing temperatures (40-60 °C) using the mock community. The effect of temperature varied by primer pair but overall it only had a minor effect on taxon recovery. This study reveals the weak performance of some primer sets employed in past studies. It also demonstrates that certain primer sets can recover most taxa in a diverse species assemblage. Thus, based our experimental set up, there is no need to employ several primer sets targeting the same gene region. We identify several suitable primer sets for arthropod metabarcoding, and specifically recommend BF3 + BR2, as it is not affected by primer slippage and provides maximal taxonomic resolution. The fwhF2 + fwhR2n primer set amplifies a shorter fragment and is therefore ideal when targeting degraded DNA (e.g., from gut contents).

Indexed as

BiodiversityDegeneracyDNA metabarcodingInsectsPrimer bias

Identifiers

PMID31608170
PMCPMC6786254

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.