Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40927319›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

Mock Plant Communities and a Large Mammal Case Study Reveal ITS2 Primer Bias Against Graminoids.

Mary Sadyrova, Emily Martin, Philip Ramsey, Lorinda Bullington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Mary SadyrovaMPG Ranch Florence Montana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8204-8922
Emily MartinMPG Ranch Florence Montana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7917-6735
Philip RamseyMPG Ranch Florence Montana USA.
Lorinda BullingtonMPG Ranch Florence Montana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4132-2762

Funding

Research Core (Developmental Research Project Program)P20GM103474 · NIGMS · MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY - BOZEMAN · PI Jeffrey Good · 2012 to 2026
$60.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA fecal metabarcoding has revolutionized the field of herbivore diet analyses, offering deeper insight into plant-herbivore interactions and more reliable ecological inferences. However, due to PCR amplification bias, primer selection has a major impact on the validity of these inferences and insights. Using two pooling approaches on four mock communities and a case study examining diets of four large mammalian herbivores (LMH), we evaluated the efficacy of two primer pairs targeting the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) region: the widely used ITS-S2F/ITS4 pair and the UniPlant F/R pair, designed specifically for DNA metabarcoding. Both primer pairs consistently underrepresented graminoids, where > 40% of graminoid species did not amplify in vitro. However, the UniPlant F/R primer pair more accurately amplified mock plant communities, whereas the ITS-S2F/ITS4 pair underestimated graminoid relative abundance by at least twofold more than UniPlant F/R primers. Furthermore, in the LMH case study, UniPlant F/R primers identified graminoids as the dominant plant group for at least one LMH, indicating diet niche partitioning, while ITS-S2F/ITS4 primers largely failed to amplify graminoid DNA, potentially overestimating LMH diet overlap. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating mock community analyses into DNA metabarcoding protocols to identify and mitigate primer bias, thereby enhancing the accuracy of ecological conclusions and supporting more effective conservation and management decisions.

Indexed as

diet barcodingIllumina MiSeqmolecular diet analysisplant mock communityungulate

Identifiers

PMID40927319
PMCPMC12414724

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.