Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31993074›Full record

ReviewEvolutionary applications2020

Population-level inferences from environmental DNA-Current status and future perspectives.

Eva Egelyng Sigsgaard, Mads Reinholdt Jensen, Inger Eleanor Winkelmann, Peter Rask Møller, Michael Møller Hansen, Philip Francis Thomsen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evolutionary applications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 186 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eva Egelyng SigsgaardDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-1550
Mads Reinholdt JensenDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8240-1083
Inger Eleanor WinkelmannDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5010-3169
Peter Rask MøllerNatural History Museum of Denmark University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Ø Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0177-0977
Michael Møller HansenDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5372-4828
Philip Francis ThomsenDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9867-4366
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) extracted from water samples has recently shown potential as a valuable source of population genetic information for aquatic macroorganisms. This approach offers several potential advantages compared with conventional tissue-based methods, including the fact that eDNA sampling is noninvasive and generally more cost-efficient. Currently, eDNA approaches have been limited to single-marker studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and the relationship between eDNA haplotype composition and true haplotype composition still needs to be thoroughly verified. This will require testing of bioinformatic and statistical software to correct for erroneous sequences, as well as biases and random variation in relative sequence abundances. However, eDNA-based population genetic methods have far-reaching potential for both basic and applied research. In this paper, we present a brief overview of the achievements of eDNA-based population genetics to date, and outline the prospects for future developments in the field, including the estimation of nuclear DNA (nuDNA) variation and epigenetic information. We discuss the challenges associated with eDNA samples as opposed to those of individual tissue samples and assess whether eDNA might offer additional types of information unobtainable with tissue samples. Lastly, we provide recommendations for determining whether an eDNA approach would be a useful and suitable choice in different research settings. We limit our discussion largely to contemporary aquatic systems, but the advantages, challenges, and perspectives can to a large degree be generalized to eDNA studies with a different spatial and temporal focus.

Indexed as

aquaticenvironmental DNAhigh‐throughput sequencingnoninvasive samplingpopulation genomics

Identifiers

PMID31993074
PMCPMC6976968
OpenAlexW2980767418

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.