Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36653864›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2023

Faecal metabarcoding provides improved detection and taxonomic resolution for non-invasive monitoring of gastrointestinal nematode parasites in wild moose populations.

Marie L Davey, Stefaniya Kamenova, Frode Fossøy, Erling J Solberg, Rebecca Davidson, Atle Mysterud, Christer M Rolandsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Phylogenetic and molecular insights into the genetic diversity of the invasive nematodeInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Marie L DaveyNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway. marie.davey@nina.no.
Stefaniya KamenovaUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Frode FossøyNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.
Erling J SolbergNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.
Rebecca DavidsonNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Tromsø, Norway.
Atle MysterudNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.
Christer M RolandsenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

EC Horizon 2020 869471Norges Forskningsråd 257642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough wild ungulate populations are heavily monitored throughout Europe, we understand little of how parasites affect population dynamics, and there is no systematic, long-term monitoring of parasite diversity and parasite loads. Such monitoring is in part hampered by a lack of time- and cost-effective assay methodologies with high sensitivity and good taxonomic resolution. DNA metabarcoding has been successfully used to characterize the parasitic nemabiome with high taxonomic resolution in a variety of wild and domestic hosts. However, in order to implement this technique in large-scale, potentially non-invasive monitoring of gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes (GIN), protocol optimization is required to maximize biodiversity detection, whilst maintaining time- and cost-effectiveness.

methodsFaecal samples were collected from a wild moose population and GIN communities were characterized and quantified using both parasitological techniques (egg and larva counting) and DNA metabarcoding of the ITS2 region of rDNA. Three different isolation methods were compared that differed in the volume of starting material and cell lysis method.

resultsSimilar nematode faunas were recovered from all samples using both parasitological and metabarcoding methods, and the approaches were largely congruent. However, metabarcoding assays showed better taxonomic resolution and slightly higher sensitivity than egg and larvae counts. The metabarcoding was not strictly quantitative, but the proportion of target nematode sequences recovered was correlated with the parasitologically determined parasite load. Species detection rates in the metabarcoding assays were maximized using a DNA isolation method that included mechanical cell disruption and maximized the starting material volume.

conclusionsDNA metabarcoding is a promising technique for the non-invasive, large-scale monitoring of parasitic GINs in wild ungulate populations, owing to its high taxonomic resolution, increased assay sensitivity, and time- and cost-effectiveness. Although metabarcoding is not a strictly quantitative method, it may nonetheless be possible to create a management- and conservation-relevant index for the host parasite load from this data. To optimize the detection rates and time- and cost-effectiveness of metabarcoding assays, we recommend choosing a DNA isolation method that involves mechanical cell disruption and maximizes the starting material volume.

Indexed as

DeerIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticNematodaParasitesAnimalsAnimals, WildBiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, RibosomalDNA, RibosomalAlces alcesDNA extraction methodHelminthITS2MetabarcodingNC1–NC2 primersNemabiomeUngulates

Identifiers

PMID36653864
PMCPMC9847159

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.