The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples
Open accessAbstract
The assessment of species distribution is a first critical phase of biodiversity studies and is necessary to many disciplines such as biogeography, conservation biology and ecology. However, several species are difficult to detect, especially during particular time periods or developmental stages, potentially biasing study outcomes. Here we present a novel approach, based on the limited persistence of DNA in the environment, to detect the presence of a species in fresh water. We used specific primers that amplify short mitochondrial DNA sequences to track the presence of a frog ( Rana catesbeiana ) in controlled environments and natural wetlands. A multi-sampling approach allowed for species detection in all environments where it was present, even at low densities. The reliability of the results was demonstrated by the identification of amplified DNA fragments, using traditional sequencing and parallel pyrosequencing techniques. As the environment can retain the molecular imprint of inhabiting species, our approach allows the reliable detection of secretive organisms in wetlands without direct observation. Combined with massive sequencing and the development of DNA barcodes that enable species identification, this approach opens new perspectives for the assessment of current biodiversity from environmental samples.
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
Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the sargasso sea
Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J. F., Halpern, A. L., Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E., Nelson, W., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093857 · Cited by 4,376
Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR
Taberlet, P. (1996) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/24.16.3189 · Cited by 1,491
Self-citation
Cited by
Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward
Simberloff, D., Martin, J.-L., Genovesi, P., Maris, V., Wardle, D. A., Aronson, J., Courchamp, F., Galil, B., García-Berthou, E., Pascal, M., et al. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 · Cited by 3,344
Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity
Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019 · Cited by 2,082
Valentini, A., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.011 · Cited by 1,122
Self-citationEnvironmental Conditions Influence eDNA Persistence in Aquatic Systems
Barnes, M. A., Turner, C. R., Jerde, C. L., Renshaw, M. A., Chadderton, W. L., & Lodge, D. M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es404734p · Cited by 939
Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water
Turner, C. R., Uy, K. L., & Everhart, R. C. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.017 · Cited by 555
Metadata
- Authors
- Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P.
- Venue
- Biology Letters
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2008-04-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 423-425
- ISSN
- 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-957X
- OpenAlex
- W2131545754
- Cited by
- 1,707
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0118
- The paper
- Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2008). Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0118
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.