ArticlePeerJ2022
Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison between Passive airDNA Collection and Extraction Methods on the Recovered Terrestrial Vertebrate Assemblage.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Unlocking the agro-physiological potential of wheat rhizoplane fungi under low P conditions using a niche-conserved consortium approach.Journal of experimental botany · 2025Article
- The Use of eDNA Metabarcoding to Detect and Identify Phytophthora in Water Samples.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a common technique for efficient biodiversity monitoring, especially of microbes. Recently, the usefulness of aquatic eDNA in monitoring the diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic fungi has been suggested. In eDNA studies, different experimental factors, such as DNA extraction kits or methods, can affect the subsequent analyses and the results of DNA metabarcoding. However, few methodological studies have been carried out on eDNA of fungi, and little is known about how experimental procedures can affect the results of biodiversity analysis. In this study, we focused on the effect of DNA extraction method on fungal DNA metabarcoding using freshwater samples obtained from rivers and lakes. Methods: DNA was extracted from freshwater samples using the DNeasy PowerSoil kit, which is mainly used to extractmicrobial DNA from soil, and the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit, which is commonly used for eDNA studies on animals. We then compared PCR inhibition and fungal DNA metabarcoding results; Results: No PCR inhibition was detected in any of the samples, and no significant differences in the number of OTUs and OTU compositions were detected between the samples processed using different kits. These results indicate that both DNA extraction kits may provide similar diversity results for the river and lake samples evaluated in this study. Therefore, it may be possible to evaluate the diversity of fungi using a unified experimental method, even with samples obtained for diversity studies on other taxa such as those of animals.
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.