Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42594157›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Assessing fish diversity in the Amazon: The impact of primers and reference libraries in eDNA surveys.

Shizuka Hashimoto, Sarah V Carvalho, Sonny de S C Miranda, Valéria N Machado, Lucélia N Carvalho, Cláudia P de Deus, Izeni P Farias, Tomas Hrbek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

8 authors.

Shizuka HashimotoLaboratório de Evolução e Genética Animal (LEGAL), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-1747
Sarah V CarvalhoLaboratório de Evolução e Genética Animal (LEGAL), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0063-859X
Sonny de S C MirandaInstituto de Computação (IComp), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Valéria N MachadoLaboratório de Evolução e Genética Animal (LEGAL), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-094X
Lucélia N CarvalhoInstituto de Ciências Naturais, Humanas e Sociais, Laboratório de Ictiologia Tropical (LIT), Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso-UFMT, Campus Universitário de Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0673-0165
Cláudia P de DeusPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Biologia de Água Doce e Pesca Interior (BADPI), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Izeni P FariasLaboratório de Evolução e Genética Animal (LEGAL), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1416-4351
Tomas HrbekLaboratório de Evolução e Genética Animal (LEGAL), Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3239-7068

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiodiversityDNA, EnvironmentalDNA PrimersFishesAnimalsExtrachromosomal DNAGene LibraryRiversSpecies SpecificityDNA, EnvironmentalDNA PrimersExtrachromosomal DNA

Identifiers

PMID42594157
PMCPMC13472407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.