ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Taxonomic Classifiers in Marine Vertebrate eDNA Studies.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mitochondrial DNA metabarcoding system based on tNGS enables multiplex identification of vertebrate species in samples containing degraded and mixed DNA.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- phyloBARCODER: A Web Tool for Phylogenetic Classification of Eukaryote Metabarcodes Using Custom Reference Databases.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a widely used tool for surveying marine vertebrate biodiversity. To this end, many computational tools have been released and a plethora of bioinformatic approaches are used for eDNA-based community composition analysis. Simulation studies and careful evaluation of taxonomic classifiers are essential to establish reliable benchmarks to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of eDNA-based findings. Here we present a comprehensive evaluation of nine taxonomic classifiers exploring three widely used mitochondrial markers (12S rDNA, 16S rDNA and COI) in Australian marine vertebrates. Curated reference databases and exclusion database tests were used to simulate diverse species compositions, including three positive control and two negative control datasets. Using these simulated datasets ranging from 36 to 302 marker genes, we were able to identify between 19% and 89% of marine vertebrate species using mitochondrial markers. We show that MMSeqs2 and Metabuli generally outperform BLAST with 10% and 11% higher F1 scores for 12S and 16S rDNA markers, respectively, and that Naive Bayes Classifiers such as Mothur outperform sequence-based classifiers except MMSeqs2 for COI markers by 11%. Database exclusion tests reveal that MMSeqs2 and BLAST are less susceptible to false positives compared to Kraken2 with default parameters. Based on these findings, we recommend that MMSeqs2 is used for taxonomic classification of marine vertebrates given its ability to improve species-level assignments while reducing the number of false positives. Our work contributes to the establishment of best practices in eDNA-based biodiversity analysis to ultimately increase the reliability of this monitoring tool in the context of marine vertebrate 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.