Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41756968›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.

Ela Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, Emma Granqvist, Karol H Nowak, Catalina Valdivia, Mateusz Buczek, Amrita Srivathsan, Emily Hartop, Andreia Miraldo, Tomas Roslin, Ayco J M Tack and 3 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Ela Iwaszkiewicz-EggebrechtDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1412-1711
Emma GranqvistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1513-1674
Karol H NowakInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Catalina ValdiviaInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Mateusz BuczekInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Amrita SrivathsanCenter for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7988-3437
Emily HartopDepartment of Natural History, NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Andreia MiraldoDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tomas RoslinDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.
Ayco J M TackDepartment of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Piotr ŁukasikInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.
Rudolf MeierCenter for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany.
Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

The evolutionary genetics and genomics of Wolbachia effects on host physiologyR35GM124701 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA · PI Brandon S. Cooper · 2017 to 2026
$3.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM124701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding-high-throughput sequencing of barcode regions from bulk samples-has become a key tool for insect biodiversity assessment. Yet, how methodological choices affect the accuracy of metabarcoding data remains insufficiently explored. In this paper, we ask: (1) How does the lysis method (non-destructive lysis vs. destructive homogenization) affect community recovery? (2) How comprehensively does metabarcoding capture species richness? (3) To what extent can spike-ins improve abundance estimates? (4) How accurately can species abundances be estimated?We evaluated the accuracy of insect metabarcoding using 4,749 bulk samples from a large-scale biodiversity survey subjected to mild lysis. Of these samples, 856 were also homogenized, allowing a systematic comparison of the effect of alternative treatments. To potentially improve abundance estimates, we added six biological spike-ins (i.e., foreign insects) to all samples, and two synthetic spike-ins (artificial DNA fragments) to the homogenization treatment. In addition, we established the contents of 15 samples by individually barcoding all specimens, enabling direct assessment of occurrence and abundance estimates.Our results revealed consistent differences between destructive and non-destructive treatments. While both methods reliably detected the majority of species, small and soft-bodied taxa were more often recovered after mild lysis than after homogenization, while the reverse was true for heavily sclerotized, hairy, and large taxa. Using biological spike-ins for calibration reduced the variance in read numbers per specimen considerably, especially in homogenized samples, while synthetic spike-ins were less effective. In a Bayesian analysis, where species data were matched to the best-fitting spike-in calibration curve, accurate abundance estimates (+/-1 individual) were obtained for 72.9% of species occurrences.Our results show that it is possible to obtain reasonably accurate abundance estimates from metabarcoding data, and that mild lysis and homogenization result in different taxon-specific biases in terms of occurrence data, with neither method outperforming the other. Accuracy is improved by homogenization rather than mild lysis of samples, and by the use of biological rather than synthetic spike-ins. Together, these findings provide a major step towards robust, quantitative biodiversity monitoring using DNA-metabarcoding.

Identifiers

PMID41756968
PMCPMC12934785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.