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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding
TABERLET, P., COISSAC, E., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05470.x · Cited by 1,907
Elbrecht, V., & Leese, F. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 · Cited by 765
Stadhouders, R., Pas, S. D., Anber, J., Voermans, J., Mes, T. H. M., & Schutten, M. (2010) · The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090035 · Cited by 399
Cited by
Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies
Nearing, J. T., Comeau, A. M., & Langille, M. G. I. (2021) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-021-01059-0 · Cited by 240
Disentangling bias for non-destructive insect metabarcoding
Martoni, F., Piper, A. M., Rodoni, B. C., & Blacket, M. J. (2022) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.12981 · Cited by 36
Tournayre, O., Tian, H., Lougheed, D. R., Windle, M. J. S., Lambert, S., Carter, J., Sun, Z., Ridal, J., Wang, Y., Cumming, B. F., et al. (2024) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.590 · Cited by 13
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.