Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33147221›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Harnessing the power of eDNA metabarcoding for the detection of deep-sea fishes.

Beverly McClenaghan, Nicole Fahner, David Cote, Julek Chawarski, Avery McCarthy, Hoda Rajabi, Greg Singer, Mehrdad Hajibabaei

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Invisible invaders: A new warning flag for molecularly detected alien species (MODAS) in databases and information systems.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A tailored MoSNational science review · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Beverly McClenaghanCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-7906
Nicole FahnerCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
David CoteFisheries and Oceans Canada, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Julek ChawarskiCentre for Fisheries Ecosystem Research, Fisheries & Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, NL, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5107-2037
Avery McCarthyCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
Hoda RajabiCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
Greg SingerCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.
Mehrdad HajibabaeiCentre for Environmental Genomics Applications, eDNAtec Inc., St. John's, NL, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The deep ocean is the largest biome on Earth and faces increasing anthropogenic pressures from climate change and commercial fisheries. Our ability to sustainably manage this expansive habitat is impeded by our poor understanding of its inhabitants and by the difficulties in surveying and monitoring these areas. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has great potential to improve our understanding of this region and to facilitate monitoring across a broad range of taxa. Here, we evaluate two eDNA sampling protocols and seven primer sets for elucidating fish diversity from deep sea water samples. We found that deep sea water samples (> 1400 m depth) had significantly lower DNA concentrations than surface or mid-depth samples necessitating a refined protocol with a larger sampling volume. We recovered significantly more DNA in large volume water samples (1.5 L) filtered at sea compared to small volume samples (250 mL) held for lab filtration. Furthermore, the number of unique sequences (exact sequence variants; ESVs) recovered per sample was higher in large volume samples. Since the number of ESVs recovered from large volume samples was less variable and consistently high, we recommend the larger volumes when sampling water from the deep ocean. We also identified three primer sets which detected the most fish taxa but recommend using multiple markers due the variability in detection probabilities and taxonomic resolution among fishes for each primer set. Overall, fish diversity results obtained from metabarcoding were comparable to conventional survey methods. While eDNA sampling and processing need be optimized for this unique environment, the results of this study demonstrate that eDNA metabarcoding can facilitate biodiversity surveys in the deep ocean, require less dedicated survey effort per unit identification, and are capable of simultaneously providing valuable information on other taxonomic groups.

Indexed as

AnimalsAtlantic OceanDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalDNA PrimersEnvironmental MonitoringFishesPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNADNA, EnvironmentalDNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID33147221
PMCPMC7641347

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.