ArticleScientific reports2022
Molecular assays to reliably detect and quantify predation on a forest pest in bats faeces.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeted molecular methods such as conventional PCR (cPCR) and quantitative PCR (qPCR), combined with species-specific primers and probes, are widely applied for pest species detection. Besides, the potential of qPCR to quantify DNA in samples makes it an invaluable molecular tool to infer the predation levels on specific prey by analysing predators' stools. Nevertheless, studies on the diet of bats failed to find any empirical relationship, and it remains to be evaluated. Thus, we developed and evaluated two species-specific PCR assays to detect and quantify DNA of a major forest pest, the pine processionary, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, in bats' faeces. Further, we empirically compared a range of different known DNA concentrations (input) of the target species mixed with mocks and bat faecal samples against DNA abundances yielded by qPCR (output) for a quantitative assessment. Overall, cPCR showed a lower detection rate than qPCR, but augmenting the replicate effort from one to three replicates led to a greater increase in the detection rate of the cPCR (from 57 to 80%) than the qPCR (from 90 to 99%). The quantitative experiment results showed a highly significant correlation between the input and output DNA concentrations (t = 10.84, p < 0.001) with a mean slope value of 1.05, indicating the accuracy of our qPCR assay to estimate DNA abundance of T. pityocampa in bat faeces. The framework of this study can be taken as a model to design similar assays applicable to other species of interest, such as agricultural pests or insects of public health concern.
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.