ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.
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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.