ArticlePeerJ2025
DNA metabarcoding of mites from small soil samples: limited agreement with morphological identifications but improved results from long-read sequencing.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Full-Length ITS Metabarcoding Across Illumina 2 × 500, PacBio, and Oxford Nanopore Sequencing Using Mock and Soil Communities.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Integrating Megabarcoding and Metabarcoding to Unlock Diversity and Distribution Data Shortfalls in Dark Taxa.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The characterization of soil mite (Acari) communities traditionally follows morphological identifications of specimens extracted from soil, which is a highly laborious and time-consuming process. Metabarcoding has become an increasingly utilized approach for species identification from environmental DNA (eDNA) samples, but whether the metabarcoding approaches align with the morphological identification data on soil mites has rarely been addressed. Here, we examine the congruence of soil mite communities between morphological and metabarcoding datasets. The morphological dataset was generated by extracting mite specimens from the soil samples, whereas molecular datasets represent two types of cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) amplicons produced directly from soil eDNA (from 0.2 g and 2 g soil samples) and sequenced with Illumina (313 base pairs amplicons) and PacBio (658 base pairs amplicons) platforms. We found that specimen extraction from soil samples, followed by morphological identification, yielded the highest number of mite species. Despite significantly lower mite richness in the metabarcoding datasets, PacBio datasets provided more reliable community profiles that aligned strongly with the morphological data. This indicates that soil sample quantities generally used for microbial analyses are also informative in studying soil faunal communities. Furthermore, our results indicate that methodological choices (herein PacBio
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.