Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876735›Full record

ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2023

Optimizing insect metabarcoding using replicated mock communities.

Elzbieta Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, Emma Granqvist, Mateusz Buczek, Monika Prus, Jan Kudlicka, Tomas Roslin, Ayco J M Tack, Anders F Andersson, Andreia Miraldo, Fredrik Ronquist and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. With a little help from my friends: the roles of microbial symbionts in insect populations and communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  11. Towards holistic insect monitoring: species discovery, description, identification and traits for all insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  12. 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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors.

Elzbieta Iwaszkiewicz-EggebrechtDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Emma GranqvistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Mateusz BuczekInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland.
Monika PrusInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland.
Jan KudlickaDepartment of Data Science and Analytics, BI Norwegian Business School, NO-0442 Oslo, Norway.
Tomas RoslinDepartment of Ecology; Box 7044, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Ayco J M TackDepartment of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, SE-114 18 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders F AnderssonKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Gene Technology, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Stockholm, Sweden.
Andreia MiraldoDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Piotr ŁukasikDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

The evolutionary genetics and genomics of Wolbachia effects on host physiologyR35GM124701 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA · PI Brandon S. Cooper · 2017 to 2026
$3.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM124701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1: Metabarcoding (high-throughput sequencing of marker gene amplicons) has emerged as a promising and cost-effective method for characterizing insect community samples. Yet, the methodology varies greatly among studies and its performance has not been systematically evaluated to date. In particular, it is unclear how accurately metabarcoding can resolve species communities in terms of presence-absence, abundances, and biomass. 2: Here we use mock community experiments and a simple probabilistic model to evaluate the effect of different DNA extraction protocols on metabarcoding performance. Specifically, we ask four questions: (Q1) How consistent are the recovered community profiles across replicate mock communities?; (Q2) How does the choice of lysis buffer affect the recovery of the original community?; (Q3) How are community estimates affected by differing lysis times and homogenization?; and (Q4) Is it possible to obtain adequate species abundance estimates through the use of biological spike-ins? 3: We show that estimates are quite variable across community replicates. In general, a mild lysis protocol is better at reconstructing species lists and approximate counts, while homogenization is better at retrieving biomass composition. Small insects are more likely to be detected in lysates, while some tough species require homogenization to be detected. Results are less consistent across biological replicates for lysates than for homogenates. Some species are associated with strong PCR amplification bias, which complicates the reconstruction of species counts. Yet, with adequate spike-in data, species abundance can be determined with roughly 40% standard error for homogenates, and with roughly 50% standard error for lysates, under ideal conditions. In the latter case, however, this often requires species-specific reference data, while spike-in data generalizes better across species for homogenates. 4: We conclude that a non-destructive, mild lysis approach shows the highest promise for presence/absence description of the community, while also allowing future morphological or molecular work on the material. However, homogenization protocols perform better for characterizing community composition, in particular in terms of biomass.

Indexed as

Abundance estimationhomogenizationMalaise trapmetabarcodingmock communitiesnon-destructive mild lysisspike-ins

Identifiers

PMID37876735
PMCPMC10593422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.