Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32979002›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2021

Monitoring the ecological status of rivers with diatom eDNA metabarcoding: A comparison of taxonomic markers and analytical approaches for the inference of a molecular diatom index.

Laure Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil, Agnès Bouchez, Tristan Cordier, Arielle Cordonier, Julie Guéguen, Frederic Rimet, Valentin Vasselon, Jan Pawlowski

Abstract 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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Environmental DNA for biomonitoring.Molecular ecology · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Laure Apothéloz-Perret-GentilDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8592-3079
Agnès BouchezUMR CARRTEL, INRAE, Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Thonon, France.
Tristan CordierDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Arielle CordonierDepartment of Territorial Management, Water Ecology Service, Geneva, Switzerland.
Julie GuéguenUMR CARRTEL, INRAE, Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Thonon, France.
Frederic RimetUMR CARRTEL, INRAE, Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Thonon, France.
Valentin VasselonPôle R&D "ECLA", Thonon-les-Bains, France.
Jan PawlowskiDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, several studies demonstrated the usefulness of diatom eDNA metabarcoding as an alternative to assess the ecological quality of rivers and streams. However, the choice of the taxonomic marker as well as the methodology for data analysis differ between these studies, hampering the comparison of their results and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare two taxonomic markers commonly used in diatom metabarcoding and three distinct analytical approaches to infer a molecular diatom index. We used the values of classical morphological diatom index as a benchmark for this comparison. We amplified and sequenced both a fragment of the rbcL gene and the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene for 112 epilithic samples from Swiss and French rivers. We inferred index values using three analytical approaches: by computing it directly from taxonomically assigned sequences, by calibrating de novo the ecovalues of all metabarcodes, and by using a supervised machine learning algorithm to train predictive models. In general, the values of index obtained using the two "taxonomy-free" approaches, encompassing molecular assignment and machine learning, were closer correlated to the values of the morphological index than the values based on taxonomically assigned sequences. The correlations of the three analytical approaches were higher in the case of rbcL compared to the 18S marker, highlighting the importance of the reference database which is more complete for the rbcL marker. Our study confirms the effectiveness of diatom metabarcoding as an operational tool for rivers ecological quality assessment and shows that the analytical approaches by-passing the taxonomic assignments are particularly efficient when reference databases are incomplete.

Indexed as

DiatomsRiversBiomarkersDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEnvironmental MonitoringMachine LearningBiomarkersaquatic bioindicationbiomonitoringdiatomsenvironmental DNAmetabarcodingtaxonomy-free

Identifiers

PMID32979002
PMCPMC8358953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.