ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Brute force prey metabarcoding to explore the diets of small invertebrates.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Mud to Meat: Comparative Metabarcoding Reveals Two Different Evolutionary Paths to Carnivory in a Group of Meiofaunal Annelids.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Brute force prey metabarcoding to explore the diets of small invertebrates.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Dietary plasticity in small Arctic copepods as revealed with prey metabarcoding.Journal of plankton researchArticle
- Long Term Copepod Culture Houses a Rich Microbial Eukaryotic Community Including New and Known Symbionts.The Journal of eukaryotic microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prey metabarcoding has become a popular tool in molecular ecology for resolving trophic interactions at high resolution, from various sample types and animals. To date, most predator-prey studies of small-sized animals (<1 mm) have met the problem of overabundant predator DNA in dietary samples by adding blocking primers/peptide nucleic acids. These primers aim to limit the PCR amplification and detection of the predator DNA but may introduce bias to the prey composition identified by interacting with sequences that are similar to those of the predator. Here we demonstrate the use of an alternative method to explore the prey of small marine copepods using whole-body DNA extracts and deep, brute force metabarcoding of an 18S rDNA fragment. After processing and curating raw data from two sequencing runs of varying depths (0.4 and 5.4 billion raw reads), we isolated 1.3 and 52.2 million prey reads, with average depths of ~15,900 and ~120,000 prey reads per copepod individual, respectively. While data from both sequencing runs were sufficient to distinguish dietary compositions from disparate seasons, locations, and copepod species, greater sequencing depth led to better separation of clusters. As computation and sequencing are becoming ever more powerful and affordable, we expect the brute force approach to become a general standard for prey metabarcoding, as it offers a simple and affordable solution to consumers that is impractical to dissect or unknown to science.
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.