Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32860303›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2021

Modelling technical and biological biases in macroinvertebrate community assessment from bulk preservative using multiple metabarcoding markers.

Filipa M S Martins, Miguel Porto, Maria J Feio, Bastian Egeter, Aurélie Bonin, Sónia R Q Serra, Pierre Taberlet, Pedro Beja

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Environmental DNA for biomonitoring.Molecular ecology · 2021
    Article
  13. 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 3 countries.

Filipa M S MartinsDepartamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-5031
Miguel PortoCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vila do Conde, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7640-0623
Maria J FeioDepartamento de Ciência da Vida, Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, MARE, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0362-6802
Bastian EgeterCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vila do Conde, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0850-250X
Aurélie BoninLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7800-8609
Sónia R Q SerraDepartamento de Ciência da Vida, Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, MARE, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4426-465X
Pierre TaberletLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3554-5954
Pedro BejaCIBIO/InBio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Vila do Conde, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8164-0760
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Coimbra · PTUniversity of Lisbon · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding from the ethanol used to store macroinvertebrate bulk samples is a convenient methodological option in molecular biodiversity assessment and biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems, as it preserves specimens and reduces problems associated with sample sorting. However, this method may be affected by errors and biases, which need to be thoroughly quantified before it can be mainstreamed into biomonitoring programmes. Here, we used 80 unsorted macroinvertebrate samples collected in Portugal under a Water Framework Directive monitoring programme, to compare community diversity and taxonomic composition metrics estimated through morphotaxonomy versus metabarcoding from storage ethanol using three markers (COI-M19BR2, 16S-Inse01 and 18S-Euka02) and a multimarker approach. A preliminary in silico analysis showed that the three markers were adequate for the target taxa, with detection failures related primarily to the lack of adequate barcodes in public databases. Metabarcoding of ethanol samples retrieved far less taxa per site (alpha diversity) than morphotaxonomy, albeit with smaller differences for COI-M19BR2 and the multimarker approach, while estimates of taxa turnover (beta diversity) among sites were similar across methods. Using generalized linear mixed models, we found that after controlling for differences in read coverage across samples, the probability of detection of a taxon was positively related to its proportional abundance, and negatively so to the presence of heavily sclerotized exoskeleton (e.g., Coleoptera). Overall, using our experimental protocol with different template dilutions, the COI marker showed the best performance, but we recommend the use of a multimarker approach to detect a wider range of taxa in freshwater macroinvertebrate samples. Further methodological development and optimization efforts are needed to reduce biases associated with body armouring and rarity in some macroinvertebrate taxa.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcosystemBiasBiodiversityFresh WaterPortugalbiomonitoringdetection probabilityecological indicatorshigh-throughput sequencingmultimarker metabarcoding

Identifiers

PMID32860303
PMCPMC8359330
OpenAlexW3082596978

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.