ArticleMolecular biology reports2024
Using grass inflorescence as source material for biomonitoring through environmental DNA metabarcoding.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Metabarcoding Close to Home: Songbird Nests as eDNA Aggregators for Trophic Ecology and Biodiversity Studies.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the last decade, increasing attention has been directed to using different substrates as sources of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecological research. Reports on the use of environmental DNA located on the surface of plant leaves and flowers have highlighted the utility of this DNA source in studies including, but not limited to, biodiversity, invasive species, and pollination ecology. The current study assesses grass inflorescence as a source of eDNA for detecting invertebrate taxa. METHODS AND
resultsInflorescences from four common grass species in a central South African grassland were collected for high-throughput sequencing analysis. Universal COI primers were utilised to detect Metazoan diversity. The sequencing results allowed for the detection of three Arthropoda orders, with most OTUs assigned to fungal taxa (Ascomycota and Basidiomycota). Some biases were detected while observing the relative read abundance (RRA) results. DISCUSSION: The observed biases could be explained by the accidental inclusion of invertebrate specimens during sample collection and DNA extraction. Primer biases towards the amplified taxa could be another reason for the observed RRA results. This study provided insight into the invertebrate community associated with the four sampled grass species. It should be noted that with the lack of negative field controls, it is impossible to rule out the influence of airborne eDNA on the observed diversity associated with each grass species. The lack of the inclusion of PCR and extraction blanks in the sequencing step, as well as the inclusion of negative field controls, including other areas for refinement were highlighted, and suggestions were provided to improve the outcomes of future studies.
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.