ArticleiScience2026
Environmental insights from non-target detections in urban eDNA metabarcoding.
Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabarcoding amplifies environmental DNA (eDNA) but often yields non-target taxa and false positives. Urban ecosystems are particularly prone to such detections due to inflows of external genetic material, yet their interpretation in urban eDNA studies remains unclear. This study examined non-target occurrences from fish-targeted metabarcoding in inland urban freshwater systems and proposes a perspective on interpreting such detections as ecologically meaningful signals rather than analytical noise. From 32 samples, 27.8% of total reads were non-targets, including 30 species from 21 families of non-target taxa and 35 species from 20 families of marine fish. Non-target taxa were most common in rivers, whereas marine fish appeared near wastewater facilities, reflecting human-derived inputs. These findings highlight that unexpected eDNA detections may reveal overlooked ecological and anthropogenic signals, offering insights for more reliable biodiversity assessment and management in urban ecosystems.
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.