ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2024
Development of environmental DNA metabarcoding primers for marine mollusks and comparison with published primers.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Prey Availability for the Rice's Whale (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Monitoring mollusk biodiversity is a great challenge due to their large diversity and broad distribution. Environmental DNA (eDNA) technology is increasingly applied for biodiversity monitoring, but relevant studies on marine mollusks are still limited. Although previous studies have developed several pairs of primers for mollusk eDNA analyses, most of them targeted only a small group of mollusks. In this study, seven primers were designed for the mollusk community and validated and compared with eight pairs of published primers to select the best candidates. After in silico test, MollCOI154 and MollCOI255 primers showed non-specific amplification, and same results were also obtained in published primers (COI204, Sepi, and veneroida). Moll12S100, Moll12S195 and Moll16S primers failed to amplify across all genomic DNA from selected mollusk. Except Moll16S, all developed and two published (unionoida and veneroida) primers were successfully amplified on four eDNA samples from Yangtze River estuary. After annotation of the amplified sequences, MollCOI253 showed higher annotation of the amplification results than the other primers. In conclusion, MollCOI253 had better performance in terms of amplification success and specificity, and can provide technical support for eDNA-based research, which will be beneficial for molluscan biodiversity investigation and conservation.
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.