ArticlePloS one2026
Cost-efficient filtration and replication strategies match or exceed detection sensitivity for marine eDNA diversity at an intertidal site under a standardized laboratory workflow.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimizing environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding to maximize species detection while minimizing costs and effort remains a challenge, particularly in high-throughput workflows. In the marine intertidal zone off Point Conception, California, we compared eDNA richness accumulation between filtration approaches that differed in filter type and downstream processing, field and laboratory replicates, and independent and pooled polymerase chain reaction (PCR) replicates. Ten 10-cm2 capsule filters and 10 5-cm2 syringe disc filters were processed using a standardized laboratory workflow for 12S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) (marine vertebrates) and 18S rRNA (metazoans and phytoplankton) metabarcoding, with 10 independent PCR replicates per filter. Because capsules generated larger lysate volumes than discs, the fixed extraction input volume under the standardized workflow resulted in less lysate being processed. A follow-up study pooled 10 PCR replicates for 12S rRNA. When comparing individual PCR replicates, individual filters, or all filters aggregated, discs detected greater marine vertebrate richness than capsules. Probabilistic models indicated that varying effective volume alone could produce similar richness accumulation patterns to those observed, though other filter characteristics were unaccounted for. Minimal differences in richness accumulation were detected between filters for 18S rRNA, and modeling indicated that this was not explained by higher initial copies of 18S rRNA. Meanwhile, vertebrate richness accumulation was similar when adding PCR replicates from the same sample or independent field samples across the short, relatively homogenous intertidal transect. Pooling PCR replicates had no detectable difference on richness compared to sequencing PCR replicates independently: a single pooled PCR replicate detected the same vertebrate richness as the sum of 10 independent PCR replicates. These results show that, under the standardized workflow and conditions tested here, eDNA programs may reduce costs and effort without detectable loss of richness by using filtration approaches aligned with extraction input and pooling technical replicates.
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.