Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36447594›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2022

Repeated subsamples during DNA extraction reveal increased diversity estimates in DNA metabarcoding of Malaise traps.

Vera M A Zizka, Matthias F Geiger, Thomas Hörren, Ameli Kirse, Niklas W Noll, Livia Schäffler, Alice M Scherges, Martin Sorg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 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. Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Assessing whole-host homogenisation as a new tool for parasite detection and identification.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Vera M A ZizkaLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-8883
Matthias F GeigerLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.
Thomas HörrenEntomological Society Krefeld (EVK) Krefeld Germany.
Ameli KirseLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.
Niklas W NollLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.
Livia SchäfflerLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.
Alice M SchergesLeibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Science Bonn Germany.
Martin SorgEntomological Society Krefeld (EVK) Krefeld Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increased application of DNA metabarcoding in biodiversity assessment, various laboratory protocols have been optimized, and their further evaluation is subject of current research. Homogenization of bulk samples and subsequent DNA extraction from a subsample of destructed tissue is a common first stage of the metabarcoding process. This can either be conducted using sample material soaked in a storage fixative, e.g., ethanol (here referred to as "wet" treatment) or from dried individuals ("dry"). However, it remains uncertain if perfect mixing and equal distribution of DNA within the tube is ensured during homogenization and to what extent incomplete mixing and resulting variations in tissue composition affect diversity assessments if only a fraction of the destructed sample is processed in the downstream metabarcoding workflow. Here we investigated the efficiency of homogenization under wet and dry conditions and tested how variations in destructed tissue composition might affect diversity assessments of complex arthropod samples. We considered five time intervals of Malaise trap bulk samples and process nine different subsamples of homogenized tissue (20 mg each) in both treatments. Results indicate a more consistent diversity assessment from dried material, but at the cost of a higher processing time. Both approaches detected comparable OTU diversity and revealed similar taxa compositions in a single tissue extraction. With an increased number of tissue subsamples during DNA extraction, OTU diversity increased for both approaches, especially for highly diverse samples obtained during the summer. Here, particularly the detection of small and low-biomass taxa increased. The processing of multiple subsamples in the metabarcoding protocol can therefore be a helpful procedure to enhance diversity estimates and counteract taxonomic bias in biodiversity assessments. However, the process induces higher costs and time effort and the application in large-scale biodiversity assessment, e.g., in monitoring schemes needs to be considered on project-specific prospects.

Indexed as

arthropod metabarcodingbiodiversityDNA extractionmonitoring

Identifiers

PMID36447594
PMCPMC9702565

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.