Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37925401›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2023

Validating a multi-locus metabarcoding approach for characterizing mixed-pollen samples.

Sydney B Wizenberg, Laura R Newburn, Mateus Pepinelli, Ida M Conflitti, Rodney T Richardson, Shelley E R Hoover, Robert W Currie, Pierre Giovenazzo, Amro Zayed

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 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
12.7field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Evolution of Bees: Insights from 'Omic Studies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  3. Authentication of the Botanical Origin of Honey:Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sydney B WizenbergDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Laura R NewburnDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Mateus PepinelliDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Ida M ConflittiDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Rodney T RichardsonAppalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Frostburg, MD, 21613, USA.
Shelley E R HooverDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive W, Lethbridge, AB, T1K3M4, Canada.
Robert W CurrieDepartment of Entomology, University of Manitoba, 12 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3T2N2, Canada.
Pierre GiovenazzoDépartement de Biologie, Université Laval, 2325 Rue de l'Université, Québec City, Québec, G1V0A6, Canada.
Amro ZayedDepartment of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada. zayed@yorku.ca.
York University · CAUniversité Laval · CAUniversity of Lethbridge · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental Science · US

Funding

Genome Canada LSARP #16420Ontario Genomics Institute OGI-185Ontario Research Fund LSARP #16420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mutualistic interaction between entomophilous plants and pollinators is fundamental to the structure of most terrestrial ecosystems. The sensitive nature of this relationship has been disrupted by anthropogenic modifications to natural landscapes, warranting development of new methods for exploring this trophic interaction. Characterizing the composition of pollen collected by pollinators, e.g. Apis mellifera, is a common means of exploring this relationship, but traditional methods of microscopic pollen assessment are laborious and limited in their scope. The development of pollen metabarcoding as a method of rapidly characterizing the abundance and diversity of pollen within mixed samples presents a new frontier for this type of work, but metabarcoding may have limitations, and validation is warranted before any suite of primers can be confidently used in a research program. We set out to evaluate the utility of an integrative approach, using a set of established primers (ITS2 and rbcL) versus melissopalynological analysis for characterizing 27 mixed-pollen samples from agricultural sites across Canada.

resultsBoth individual markers performed well relative to melissopalynology at the family level with decreases in the strength of correlation and linear model fits at the genus level. Integrating data from both markers together via a multi-locus approach provided the best rank-based correlation between metagenetic and melissopalynological data at both the genus (ρ = 0.659; p < 0.001) and family level (ρ = 0.830; p < 0.001). Species accumulation curves indicated that, after controlling for sampling effort, melissopalynological characterization provides similar or higher species richness estimates than either marker. The higher number of plant species discovered via the metabarcoding approach simply reflects the vastly greater sampling effort in comparison to melissopalynology.

conclusionsPollen metabarcoding performed well at characterizing the composition of mixed pollen samples relative to a traditional melissopalynological approach. Limitations to the quantitative application of this method can be addressed by adopting a multi-locus approach that integrates information from multiple markers.

Indexed as

MelissopalynologyMetabarcodingMetageneticPalynologyPollenPollination

Identifiers

PMID37925401
PMCPMC10625703
OpenAlexW4388330430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.