Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42568342›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026

Benchmarking Full-Length ITS Metabarcoding Across Illumina 2 × 500, PacBio, and Oxford Nanopore Sequencing Using Mock and Soil Communities.

Leho Tedersoo, Marko Prous, Meirong Chen, Sten Anslan, Irja Saar, Benjamin Dubois, Vladimir Mikryukov

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 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

7 authors.

Leho TedersooMycology and Microbiology Center, Institute of Technology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-1249
Marko ProusMuseum of Natural History, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5329-7608
Meirong ChenInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7119-6263
Sten AnslanMycology and Microbiology Center, Institute of Technology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2299-454X
Irja SaarInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8453-9721
Benjamin DuboisBiological Engineering Unit, Life Sciences Department, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, Gembloux, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4545-5688
Vladimir MikryukovMycology and Microbiology Center, Institute of Technology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2786-2690

Funding

Estonian Ministry of Education and Research TK200HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 101200758Research Council of Finland 362828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabarcoding is a powerful tool for biodiversity comparisons, where standard-size DNA barcodes (> 500 bases) offer better taxonomic resolution than shorter ones. Still, the choice of sequencing platforms and bioinformatics pipelines may strongly affect inferred diversity due to various technical biases. We assessed the relative performance of Illumina MiSeq i100 (2 × 500 paired-end), PacBio Revio and Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines, using full-length ITS amplicon sequencing datasets from a 103-species mock community and 45 composite soil samples. Despite numerous low-quality reads, PacBio yielded the lowest overall error rate and highest number of taxa. Illumina revealed the highest proportion of chimeric and index-switched reads, along with a strong bias towards shorter amplicons. MinION data analysed using PRONAME and Minovar-a bioinformatics pipeline presented here-had the largest proportion of low-quality data, and rare taxa were lost during data filtering and read polishing steps. Although Minovar enabled amplicon sequence variant (ASV) level precision for common taxa, we recommend clustering ASVs into OTUs. For PacBio, standard filtering approaches outperformed the ASV approach because they retained rare taxa. For Illumina, a stringent ASV approach or removal of rare OTUs would limit artefacts. Across all platforms, excess PCR cycles promoted chimeric and low-quality reads and lost quantitativity in biodiversity assessments. With moderate differences in effect sizes, all analytical approaches supported the conclusion that sampling design determines how we see soil biodiversity responses to land use. For biodiversity surveys based on the full-length ITS metabarcoding, we recommend using PacBio sequencing with standard, non-ASV pipelines.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMetagenomicsSoil MicrobiologyBenchmarkingBiodiversityComputational BiologyDNA, Ribosomal SpacerSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Ribosomal Spacerfungihigh‐throughput sequencingIllumina MiSeqindex switchingPacBio Reviosequencing bias

Identifiers

PMID42568342
PMCPMC13451959

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.