Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36070298›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparison of species-specific qPCR and metabarcoding methods to detect small pelagic fish distribution from open ocean environmental DNA.

Zeshu Yu, Shin-Ichi Ito, Marty Kwok-Shing Wong, Susumu Yoshizawa, Jun Inoue, Sachihiko Itoh, Ryuji Yukami, Kazuo Ishikawa, Chenying Guo, Minoru Ijichi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Zeshu YuAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Shin-Ichi ItoAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3635-2580
Marty Kwok-Shing WongAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Susumu YoshizawaAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Jun InoueAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Sachihiko ItohAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Ryuji YukamiFisheries Resources Institute, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kazuo IshikawaAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Chenying GuoAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Minoru IjichiAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Susumu HyodoAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used to noninvasively monitor aquatic animals in freshwater and coastal areas. However, the use of eDNA in the open ocean (hereafter referred to OceanDNA) is still limited because of the sparse distribution of eDNA in the open ocean. Small pelagic fish have a large biomass and are widely distributed in the open ocean. We tested the performance of two OceanDNA analysis methods-species-specific qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) and MiFish metabarcoding using universal primers-to determine the distribution of small pelagic fish in the open ocean. We focused on six small pelagic fish species (Sardinops melanostictus, Engraulis japonicus, Scomber japonicus, Scomber australasicus, Trachurus japonicus, and Cololabis saira) and selected the Kuroshio Extension area as a testbed, because distribution of the selected species is known to be influenced by the strong frontal structure. The results from OceanDNA methods were compared to those of net sampling to test for consistency. Then, we compared the detection performance in each target fish between the using of qPCR and MiFish methods. A positive correlation was evident between the qPCR and MiFish detection results. In the ranking of the species detection rates and spatial distribution estimations, comparable similarity was observed between results derived from the qPCR and MiFish methods. In contrast, the detection rate using the qPCR method was always higher than that of the MiFish method. Amplification bias on non-target DNA and low sample DNA quantity seemed to partially result in a lower detection rate for the MiFish method; the reason is still unclear. Considering the ability of MiFish to detect large numbers of species and the quantitative nature of qPCR, the combined usage of the two methods to monitor quantitative distribution of small pelagic fish species with information of fish community structures was recommended.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalPerciformesAnimalsBiodiversityDNAFishesOceans and SeasDNADNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID36070298
PMCPMC9451083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.