ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
Developing and Evaluating Aquatic Passive Sampling of Environmental DNA for Microbial Community Profiling.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. 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.
- Review
- Environmental DNA sampling workflow matters: testing different approaches on marine microbial assemblages in three coastal areas of Greece.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has transformed biodiversity monitoring across taxa from bacteria to mammals, yet sample collection remains a major bottleneck. Passive sampling via adsorption and entrapment has emerged as a promising alternative to overcome the limitations of conventional active filtration. However, the performance of passive sampling for microbial biodiversity monitoring remains unknown. Here, we developed passive sampling-based microbial community profiling by testing five submersion times and three common eDNA extraction methods in mesocosms, and comprehensively evaluated it by comparing results with active filtration in estuarine and coastal environments. We found that passive sampling for 24 h with enzymatic extraction yielded significantly more eDNA and higher biodiversity than shorter durations and mechanical extractions. Passive sampling consistently outperformed active filtration at every field site, with average increases of >100% in eDNA yields and >50% in taxonomic and phylogenetic diversities. Additionally, active filtration and passive sampling yielded significantly different prokaryotic and microeukaryotic community compositions, driven primarily by turnover rather than nestedness (on average 4-fold larger), implying that passive sampling is better suited for spatiotemporal detection than active filtration. Passive sampling showed greater sensitivity in identifying key environmental factors (3 vs. 2) and potential environmental bioindicators (40 vs. 20) compared with active filtration. Overall, this study establishes an efficient and practical passive sampling method for microbial biodiversity monitoring and environmental assessment in aquatic environments.
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.