ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Environmental DNA sampling workflow matters: testing different approaches on marine microbial assemblages in three coastal areas of Greece.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Environmental DNA (eDNA) and high-throughput sequencing are now common tools for investigating marine microbial communities in coastal environments. Nevertheless, different eDNA sampling workflows are used across studies, while direct comparisons of their outputs under the same environmental and analytical framework remain limited. Methods: We aimed to compare three eDNA sampling approaches, two active filtration workflows using membrane filtration (Filter) and Sterivex cartridges (Sterivex), and one passive Gauze-based workflow, applied simultaneously in three coastal gulfs of Greece, to examine whether sampling workflow influences the recovered bacterial and eukaryotic diversity and community structure via 16S and 18S rRNA gene metabarcoding. The workflows differed in sampling characteristics, including pre-screening, processed water volume and capture mechanism, with 200-5m pre-screening applied only to Filter and Sterivex. Results: Filter and Sterivex produced concordant patterns of community structure and generally lower between-sample variability. They were nonetheless not fully equivalent: differences in diversity, taxonomic representation and network hub identity indicate that the two active workflows recover partially distinct community representations. Gauze produced a more variable and compositionally distinct signal, particularly for eukaryotic communities, where concordance with the active workflows was weak and occasional low-yield recovery occurred. Workflow-related differences were also observed in exploratory co-occurrence network topology and hub identity, indicating that workflow choice can influence downstream ecological interpretation. Discussion: Each workflow appeared to be suitable for different research objectives, with passive sampling providing complementary information. Maintaining a consistent sampling workflow is therefore particularly important for monitoring programs and cross-study comparisons.
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.