Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42491357›Full record

ReviewBioscience2026

Making eDNA more digestible: A pizza analogy for understanding false negatives and occupancy modeling.

Jonathan D Bolland, Nathan P Griffiths, Graham S Sellers, Bernd Hänfling, Lori Lawson Handley, Rosalind M Wright

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioscience, 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

6 authors.

Jonathan D BollandHull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7326-5075
Nathan P GriffithsHull International Fisheries Institute, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8944-7412
Graham S SellersEvoHull Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Genomics Group, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9679-0435
Bernd HänflingEvoHull Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Genomics Group, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-9360
Lori Lawson HandleyEvoHull Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Genomics Group, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8153-5511
Rosalind M WrightEnvironment Agency, Rivers House, Threshelfords Business Park, Feering CO5 9SE, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-934X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sequencing from water samples has emerged as a promising and cost-effective approach to collect comprehensive freshwater biodiversity data. However, critics might highlight potential shortcomings, such as the possibility of false positives (detection of absent species) and false negatives (failing to detect a species that is present). Misconceptions and misunderstandings may also stem from the complexity of the scientific approach and technical language, with implications for decision-makers and potentially hindering conservation. In the present article, we propose an analogy of eating a pizza to simplify messaging and increase understanding of detection probability within typical eDNA metabarcoding workflows. The pizza represents a site, slices represent water samples, bites represent PCR replicates, toppings represent species and olives represent a low-abundance species. Overall, the pizza analogy provides a novel, lighthearted and memorable way to communicate complex eDNA workflows to a broad spectrum of biological scientists and practitioners.

Indexed as

biodiversityconservationendangered speciesmolecular biologypolicy

Identifiers

PMID42491357
PMCPMC13377644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.