Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40375355›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Observation Bias in Metabarcoding.

Megan R Shaffer, Elizabeth Andruszkiewicz Allan, Amy M Van Cise, Kim M Parsons, Andrew Olaf Shelton, Ryan P Kelly

Abstract read
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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Evolution of Bees: Insights from 'Omic Studies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observation Bias in Metabarcoding.Molecular ecology resources · 2025
    Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Megan R ShafferSchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-3218
Elizabeth Andruszkiewicz AllanSchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Amy M Van CiseSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kim M ParsonsConservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4580-3651
Andrew Olaf SheltonConservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Ryan P KellySchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

Office of Naval Research N00014-22-1-2719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding is subject to observation bias associated with PCR and sequencing, which can result in observed read proportions differing from actual species proportions in the DNA extract. Here, we amplify and sequence a mock community of known composition containing marine fishes and cetaceans using four different primer sets and a variety of PCR conditions. We first compare metabarcoding observations to two different sets of expected species proportions based on total genomic DNA and on target mitochondrial template DNA. We find that calibrating observed read proportions based on template DNA concentration is most appropriate as it isolates PCR amplification bias; calibration with total genomic DNA results in bias that can be attributed to both PCR amplification bias and differing ratios of template to total genomic DNA. We then model the remaining amplification bias and find that approximately 60% can be explained by inherent species-specific DNA characteristics. These include primer-template mismatches, amplicon fragment length, and GC content, which vary somewhat across Taq polymerases. Finally, we investigate how different PCR protocols influence community composition regardless of expected proportions and find that changing protocols most strongly influence the amplification of templates with primer mismatches. Our findings suggest that using primer-template pairs without mismatches and targeting a narrow taxonomic group can yield more repeatable and accurate estimates of species' true, underlying DNA template proportions. These findings identify key factors that should be considered when designing studies that aim to apply metabarcoding data quantitatively.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicFishesMetagenomicsAnimalsCetaceaDNA PrimersPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA Primersamplification efficiencydroplet digital PCRenvironmental DNAobservation biasquantitative metabarcoding

Identifiers

PMID40375355
PMCPMC12415808

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.