ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing fish diversity in the Amazon: The impact of primers and reference libraries in eDNA surveys.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting primers for DNA amplification poses a challenge in environmental DNA (eDNA) studies, particularly in biodiverse tropical ecosystems. Researchers must balance taxonomic coverage, primer specificity, and study feasibility when choosing between a single primer pair and multiple primer pairs. Empirical tests comparing these strategies are essential for improving eDNA protocols, enhancing the detection of aquatic biodiversity, and supporting conservation and environmental monitoring efforts. This study aimed to evaluate how different approaches affect the specificity and efficiency of detecting fish species in eDNA samples from the Teles Pires River basin. We (1) synthesized modified versions of primers commonly used in ichthyofaunal surveys; (2) compared the results generated by these modified primers with the standard primer versions; and (3) evaluated the species detection using two reference sequence databases: a global taxonomic database (GenBank) and a locally constructed taxonomic database containing samples of fish species previously collected in situ. The 12S-V5_mod primers detected the most fish species across the databases (67, 104, and 130 in the Midori2, Local, and joint databases, respectively), followed by the MiFish_mod primers, which detected 47, 101, and 114 species. Finally, the MiFish primers detected 39, 73, and 78 species. However, the 12S-V5_mod primers also had lower taxonomic specificity of fish species and amplified a broader range of vertebrate taxa than the MiFish_mod primers. The modified primers outperformed the MiFish primers, and detectability nearly doubled when the Local reference database was used. These results speak to the critical need for constructing reference databases of regional biodiversity, and the need to incorporate multiple primer pairs in eDNA studies.
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.