ArticleScientific reports2022
Applying convolutional neural networks to speed up environmental DNA annotation in a highly diverse ecosystem.
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 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.
- Article
- Advancing biological taxonomy in the AI era: deep learning applications, challenges, and future directions.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Review
- Zero-shot deep learning for the annotation of unknown eDNA sequences using co-occurrences and phylogenetic embeddings.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Generating realistic artificial human genomes using adversarial autoencoders.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Creating interpretable deep learning models to identify species using environmental DNA sequences.Scientific reports · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput DNA sequencing is becoming an increasingly important tool to monitor and better understand biodiversity responses to environmental changes in a standardized and reproducible way. Environmental DNA (eDNA) from organisms can be captured in ecosystem samples and sequenced using metabarcoding, but processing large volumes of eDNA data and annotating sequences to recognized taxa remains computationally expensive. Speed and accuracy are two major bottlenecks in this critical step. Here, we evaluated the ability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to process short eDNA sequences and associate them with taxonomic labels. Using a unique eDNA data set collected in highly diverse Tropical South America, we compared the speed and accuracy of CNNs with that of a well-known bioinformatic pipeline (OBITools) in processing a small region (60 bp) of the 12S ribosomal DNA targeting freshwater fishes. We found that the taxonomic labels from the CNNs were comparable to those from OBITools, with high correlation levels for the composition of the regional fish fauna. The CNNs enabled the processing of raw fastq files at a rate of approximately 1 million sequences per minute, which was about 150 times faster than with OBITools. Given the good performance of CNNs in the highly diverse ecosystem considered here, the development of more elaborate CNNs promises fast deployment for future biodiversity inventories using eDNA.
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.