Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39980208›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Navigating Past Oceans: Comparing Metabarcoding and Metagenomics of Marine Ancient Sediment Environmental DNA.

Luke E Holman, Giulia Zampirolo, Richard Gyllencreutz, James Scourse, Tobias Frøslev, Christian Carøe, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Kristine Bohmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ancient environmental DNA indicates limited human impact on marine biodiversity in pre-industrial Iceland.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    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.

Luke E HolmanSection for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8139-3760
Giulia ZampiroloSection for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0145-1538
Richard GyllencreutzDepartment of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-8598
James ScourseCentre for Geography and Environmental Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2658-8730
Tobias FrøslevCentre for Ancient Environmental Genomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3530-013X
Christian CarøeNovonesis A/S, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9601-6768
Shyam GopalakrishnanCentre for Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-6810
Mikkel Winther PedersenGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7291-8887
Kristine BohmannSection for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7907-064X

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 856488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The condition of ancient marine ecosystems provides context for contemporary biodiversity changes in human-impacted oceans. Sequencing sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) is an emerging method for generating high-resolution biodiversity time-series data, offering insights into past ecosystems. However, few studies directly compare the two predominant sedaDNA sequencing approaches: metabarcoding and shotgun-metagenomics, and it remains unclear if these methodological differences affect diversity metrics. We compared these methods using sedaDNA from an archived marine sediment record sampled in the Skagerrak, North Sea, spanning almost 8000 years. We performed metabarcoding of a eukaryotic 18S rRNA region (V9) and sequenced 153-229 million metagenomic reads per sample. Our results show limited overlap between metabarcoding and metagenomics, with only three metazoan genera detected by both methods. For overlapping taxa, metabarcoding detections became inconsistent for samples older than 2000 years, while metagenomics detected taxa throughout the time series. We observed divergent patterns of alpha diversity, with metagenomics indicating decreased richness towards the present and metabarcoding showing an increase. However, beta diversity patterns were similar between methods, with discrepancies only in metazoan data comparisons. Our findings demonstrate that the choice of sequencing method significantly impacts detected biodiversity in an ancient marine sediment record. While we stress that studies with limited variation in DNA degradation among samples may not be strongly affected, researchers should exonerate methodological explanations for observed biodiversity changes in marine sediment cores, particularly when considering alpha diversity, before making ecological interpretations.

Indexed as

DNA, AncientDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalGeologic SedimentsMetagenomicsBiodiversityDNA, RibosomalNorth SeaOceans and SeasRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, AncientDNA, EnvironmentalDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 18S18S ribosomal RNAancient eDNAancient oceansmarine biodiversitysedaDNA

Identifiers

PMID39980208
PMCPMC12225701

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.