SynthesisPeerJ2023
Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Citizen Sailors Provide a Detailed Map of Open-Ocean Surface Biodiversity and Help Link eDNA Data to Satellite Observations.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Review
- Observation Bias in Metabarcoding.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Advancing the environmental DNA and RNA toolkit for aquatic ecosystem monitoring and management.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Three steps towards comparability and standardization among molecular methods for characterizing insect communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Untapped rich microbiota of mangroves of Pakistan: diversity and community compositions.Folia microbiologica · 2024Article
- rCRUX: A Rapid and Versatile Tool for Generating Metabarcoding Reference libraries in R.Environmental DNA (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- rCRUX: A Rapid and Versatile Tool for Generating Metabarcoding Reference libraries in R.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emerging field of environmental DNA (eDNA) research lacks universal guidelines for ensuring data produced are FAIR-findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable-despite growing awareness of the importance of such practices. In order to better understand these data usability challenges, we systematically reviewed 60 peer reviewed articles conducting a specific subset of eDNA research: metabarcoding studies in marine environments. For each article, we characterized approximately 90 features across several categories: general article attributes and topics, methodological choices, types of metadata included, and availability and storage of sequence data. Analyzing these characteristics, we identified several barriers to data accessibility, including a lack of common context and vocabulary across the articles, missing metadata, supplementary information limitations, and a concentration of both sample collection and analysis in the United States. While some of these barriers require significant effort to address, we also found many instances where small choices made by authors and journals could have an outsized influence on the discoverability and reusability of data. Promisingly, articles also showed consistency and creativity in data storage choices as well as a strong trend toward open access publishing. Our analysis underscores the need to think critically about data accessibility and usability as marine eDNA metabarcoding studies, and eDNA projects more broadly, continue to proliferate.
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.