Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36992947›Full record

SynthesisPeerJ2023

Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility.

Meghan M Shea, Jacob Kuppermann, Megan P Rogers, Dustin Summer Smith, Paul Edwards, Alexandria B Boehm

Full text readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observation Bias in Metabarcoding.Molecular ecology resources · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Meghan M SheaEmmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment & Resources (E-IPER), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Jacob KuppermannEarth Systems Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Megan P RogersProgram in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Dustin Summer SmithEarth Systems Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Paul EdwardsProgram in Science, Technology and Society, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Alexandria B BoehmDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA, EnvironmentalBiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalBest practicesData accessibilityData storageData usabilityEnvironmental DNAFAIR data principlesMarineMetabarcodingMetadataSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36992947
PMCPMC10042160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read72
reference markers read9
identifiers read9
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.