Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating and mitigating amplification bias in qualitative and quantitative arthropod metabarcoding

Open access
Krehenwinkel, Henrik, Wolf, Madeline, Lim, Jun Ying, Rominger, Andrew J., Simison, Warren B., Gillespie, Rosemary G.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Amplicon based metabarcoding promises rapid and cost-efficient analyses of species composition. However, it is disputed whether abundance estimates can be derived from metabarcoding due to taxon specific PCR amplification biases. PCR-free approaches have been suggested to mitigate this problem, but come with considerable increases in workload and cost. Here, we analyze multilocus datasets of diverse arthropod communities, to evaluate whether amplification bias can be countered by (1) targeting loci with highly degenerate primers or conserved priming sites, (2) increasing PCR template concentration, (3) reducing PCR cycle number or (4) avoiding locus specific amplification by directly sequencing genomic DNA. Amplification bias is reduced considerably by degenerate primers or targeting amplicons with conserved priming sites. Surprisingly, a reduction of PCR cycles did not have a strong effect on amplification bias. The association of taxon abundance and read count was actually less predictable with fewer cycles. Even a complete exclusion of locus specific amplification did not exclude bias. Copy number variation of the target loci may be another explanation for read abundance differences between taxa, which would affect amplicon based and PCR free methods alike. As read abundance biases are taxon specific and predictable, the application of correction factors allows abundance estimates.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-17333-x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Krehenwinkel, H., Wolf, M., Lim, J. Y., Rominger, A. J., Simison, W. B., & Gillespie, R. G.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-12-15
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
17668-17668
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2772234214
Cited by
307
References
3
FWCI
13.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimating and mitigating amplification bias in qualitative and quantitative arthropod metabarcoding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-17333-x
The paper
Krehenwinkel, H., Wolf, M., Lim, J. Y., Rominger, A. J., Simison, W. B., & Gillespie, R. G. (2017). Estimating and mitigating amplification bias in qualitative and quantitative arthropod metabarcoding. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17333-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.