ArticleGigaScience2022
Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Doru luteipes (Dermaptera: Forficulidae): Life History, Predatory Potential, and Rearing Method of Earwigs.Neotropical entomology · 2026Review
- Assembly-free reads accurate identification (AFRAID) approach outperforms other methods of DNA barcoding in the walnut family (Juglandaceae).Plant diversity · 2025Article
- Article
- Diverse patterns of correspondence between protist metabarcodes and protist metagenome-assembled genomes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators.GigaScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, we evaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro).
resultsIn a mock prey community, metabarcoding did not detect any prey, probably owing to primer choice and/or preferential predator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43-71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46-273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy. There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro, while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding.
conclusionsMetabarcoding and Lazaro had similar, but partially complementary, detection of prey in arthropod predator guts. However, while Lazaro was almost 2× more expensive, the number of reads was related to the amount of prey DNA, suggesting that Lazaro may provide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.
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.