ArticleMethodsX2024
A simple and cost-effective extraction for piscine environmental DNA metabarcoding using guanidine hydrochloride method.
Article in MethodsX, 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.
- Article
- Haplotype-level analysis of environmental DNA metabarcoding revealed the biogeography and phylogeography of freshwater fishes in Korean Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a valuable tool for assessing aquatic biodiversity, but the high cost and complexity of DNA extraction pose challenges for widespread adoption, especially in developing countries. This study presents a cost-effective eDNA extraction method using a guanidine hydrochloride (GuHCl) buffer, proteinase-K digestion, and isopropanol precipitation to improve the detection of fish communities. Comparison with the Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit using MiFish universal primers showed that the GuHCl protocol detected more fish species in freshwater samples, with comparable performance in relative read abundance metrics. However, the GuHCl method exhibited higher PCR inhibition in brackish samples, likely due to salinity and natural inhibitors. The results suggest that the GuHCl-based method is a viable alternative, offering enhanced sensitivity for low-abundance species in freshwater samples and cost savings. This protocol facilitates large-scale eDNA metabarcoding for ecological studies and conservation management efforts.•The GuHCl protocol identified a greater diversity of fish species in freshwater samples than the Qiagen kit, but detected fewer species in brackish water samples.•Both extraction methods demonstrated robust positive correlations in metrics of relative read abundance.
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.