ArticleMetabarcoding and metagenomics2025
What is eDNA method standardisation and why do we need it?
Article in Metabarcoding and metagenomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From environmental DNA into actionable biodiversity data: Towards the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.The Journal of heredity · 2026Review
- Review
- Trends in Aquatic Environmental DNA Research in Alaska.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Fungal ecology in the age of 'omics.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Understanding practical barriers to the global adoption of environmental DNA (eDNA) methods, tools, and standards.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Environmental DNA as a tool for hydropower impact assessments: current status, special considerations, and future integration.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid advancement of environmental DNA (eDNA) science in the past two decades has inspired a concomitant growth in the development of eDNA sampling and analytical methods. However, these methods are often developed by individual laboratories or institutions, which can isolate protocols within programmes, agencies or regions and prevent the beneficial exchange of data and ideas. Recent efforts to advance national and international coordination have resulted in a groundswell of standardisation efforts, but there is still considerable confusion around the role of formal standards for regulatory or research applications. With this commentary, we hope to provide clarity on the terminology used in standardisation discussions, including the differences between formal standards and best practice guidelines. Additionally, we discuss how eDNA method choice may be informed by environmental management scenarios and review examples of formal eDNA method standards being used to inform management action. The eDNA community now has an opportunity to develop a roadmap for method development to help close standardisation gaps, advance eDNA method adoption and accelerate our ability to monitor biological life at the scales our current environmental challenges demand.
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.