ArticlePloS one2021
Water pre-filtration methods to improve environmental DNA detection by real-time PCR and metabarcoding.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Properties and Limitations of eDNA Substrates for Terrestrial Animal Monitoring.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Review
- Review
- Barcoding Quantitative PCR Assay to Distinguish BetweenTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Advances in environmental DNA monitoring: standardization, automation, and emerging technologies in aquatic ecosystems.Science China. Life sciences · 2024Review
- Review
- Assessing the breeding phenology of a threatened frog species using eDNA and automatic acoustic monitoring.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Capturing marine microbiomes and environmental DNA: A field sampling guide.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Article
- Correction: Water pre-filtration methods to improve environmental DNA detection by real-time PCR and metabarcoding.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a novel approach for biomonitoring and has been mostly used in clear water. It is difficult to detect eDNA in turbid water as filter clogging occurs, and environmental samples contain various substances that inhibit the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and affect the accuracy of eDNA analysis. Therefore, we applied a pre-filtration method to better detect the fish species (particularly pale chub, Opsariichthys platypus) present in a water body by measuring eDNA in environmental samples containing PCR inhibitors. Upon conducting 12S rRNA metabarcoding analysis (MiFish), we found that pre-filtration did not affect the number or identities of fish species detected in our samples, but pre-filtration through pore sizes resulted in significantly reduced variance among replicate samples. Additionally, PCR amplification was improved by the pre-filtration of environmental samples containing PCR inhibitors such as humic substances. Although this study may appear to be a conservative and ancillary experiment, pre-filtration is a simple technique that can not only improve the physical properties of water, such as turbidity, but also the quality of eDNA biomonitoring.
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.