ArticleEnvironmental microbiology2021
Evaluation of V2 18S rDNA barcode marker and assessment of sample collection and DNA extraction methods for metabarcoding of autotrophic euglenids.
Article in Environmental microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiscale environmental analysis on autotrophic euglenid communities: insights from DNA metabarcoding.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Protocol for the Molecular Identification of Autotrophic Euglenids in Environmental Samples.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Protocol for Efficient Ribodepletion of Euglena gracilis RNA.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Why Euglenozoans.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even though the interest in metabarcoding in environmental studies is growing, euglenids are still underrepresented in both sea and freshwater bodies researches. The reason for this situation could be the unsuitability of universal eukaryotic DNA barcodes and primers as well as the lack of a verified protocol, suitable to assess euglenid diversity. In this study, using specific primers for the V2 hypervariable region of 18S rDNA for metabarcoding resulted in obtaining a high fraction (85%) of euglenid reads and species-level identification of almost 90% of them. Fifty species were detected by the metabarcoding method, including almost all species observed using a light microscope. We investigated three biomass harvesting methods (filtering, centrifugation and scraping the side of a collection vessel) and determined that centrifugation and filtration outperformed scrapes, but the choice between them is not crucial for the reliability of the analysis. In addition, eight DNA extraction methods were evaluated. We compared five commercially available DNA isolation kits, two CTAB-based protocols and a chelating resin. For this purpose, the efficiency of extraction, quality of obtained DNA, preparation time and generated costs were taken into consideration. After examination of the aforementioned criteria, we chose the GeneMATRIX Soil DNA Purification Kit as the most suitable for DNA isolation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.