ArticlePloS one2023
Signal and noise in metabarcoding data.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomonitoring 3.0: Beyond Taxa Lists to Evidence-Tiered Monitoring of Ecosystem Dynamics and Interactions.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Unravelling Bulk Ichthyoplankton Diversity in Vietnam: Metabarcoding Validation With Controlled Mock Samples.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Estimating Organism Abundance Using Within-Sample Haplotype Frequencies of eDNA Data.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- The Appalbees menu: a multiyear, multilocus metagenetic assessment of pollen foraging by AppalachianPeerJ · 2026Article
- Evaluating Prey Availability for the Rice's Whale (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Observation Bias in Metabarcoding.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Pruning the Tree: Comparing OTUs and ASVs in High-Throughput Sequencing of 5S-IGS Nuclear Ribosomal DNA in Phylogenetic Studies.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- First national survey of terrestrial biodiversity using airborne eDNA.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Vulnerability of Arctic Ocean microbial eukaryotes to sea ice loss.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Possible monitoring of mesophotic scleractinian corals using an underwater mini-ROV to sample coral eDNA.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabarcoding is a powerful molecular tool for simultaneously surveying hundreds to thousands of species from a single sample, underpinning microbiome and environmental DNA (eDNA) methods. Deriving quantitative estimates of underlying biological communities from metabarcoding is critical for enhancing the utility of such approaches for health and conservation. Recent work has demonstrated that correcting for amplification biases in genetic metabarcoding data can yield quantitative estimates of template DNA concentrations. However, a major source of uncertainty in metabarcoding data stems from non-detections across technical PCR replicates where one replicate fails to detect a species observed in other replicates. Such non-detections are a special case of variability among technical replicates in metabarcoding data. While many sampling and amplification processes underlie observed variation in metabarcoding data, understanding the causes of non-detections is an important step in distinguishing signal from noise in metabarcoding studies. Here, we use both simulated and empirical data to 1) suggest how non-detections may arise in metabarcoding data, 2) outline steps to recognize uninformative data in practice, and 3) identify the conditions under which amplicon sequence data can reliably detect underlying biological signals. We show with both simulations and empirical data that, for a given species, the rate of non-detections among technical replicates is a function of both the template DNA concentration and species-specific amplification efficiency. Consequently, we conclude metabarcoding datasets are strongly affected by (1) deterministic amplification biases during PCR and (2) stochastic sampling of amplicons during sequencing-both of which we can model-but also by (3) stochastic sampling of rare molecules prior to PCR, which remains a frontier for quantitative metabarcoding. Our results highlight the importance of estimating species-specific amplification efficiencies and critically evaluating patterns of non-detection in metabarcoding datasets to better distinguish environmental signal from the noise inherent in molecular detections of rare targets.
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.