Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37253423›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2023

Utilizing the state of environmental DNA (eDNA) to incorporate time-scale information into eDNA analysis.

Toshiaki S Jo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Field Trials of an Autonomous eDNA Sampler in Lotic Waters.Environmental science & technology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Toshiaki S JoResearch Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 5-3-1 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0083, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1138-9360
Ryukoku University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis allows cost-effective and non-destructive biomonitoring with a high detection sensitivity in terrestrial and aquatic environments. However, the eDNA results can sometimes include false-positive inferences of target organisms owing to the detection of aged eDNA that has long since been released from the individual and is more likely to be detected at a site further away from its source. In order to address the issue, this manuscript focuses on the state of eDNA, proposing new methodologies to estimate the age of eDNA: (1) DNA damage rate, (2) eDNA particle size distribution, and (3) viable cell-derived eDNA. In addition, the manuscript also focuses on the shorter persistence of environmental RNA (eRNA) compared with eDNA, highlighting the application of eRNA and environmental nucleic acid ratio for assessing the age of the genetic materials in water. Although substantial further research is essential to support the feasibility of these methodologies, incorporating time-scale information into eDNA analysis would update current eDNA analysis, improve the accuracy and reliability of eDNA-based monitoring, and further refine eDNA analysis as a useful monitoring tool in ecology, fisheries and various environmental sciences.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalBiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcologyEnvironmental MonitoringReproducibility of ResultsRNADNA, EnvironmentalRNAbiomonitoringDNA damageenvironmental DNA (eDNA)environmental RNA (eRNA)particle size distribution (PSD)viability PCR

Identifiers

PMID37253423
PMCPMC10229230
OpenAlexW4378782941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.