Cited by 351Environmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Environmental metabarcodes for insects: in silicoPCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias

Open access
Clarke, Laurence J., Soubrier, Julien, Weyrich, Laura S., Cooper, Alan·2014·Molecular Ecology Resources

Abstract

Studies of insect assemblages are suited to the simultaneous DNA‐based identification of multiple taxa known as metabarcoding. To obtain accurate estimates of diversity, metabarcoding markers ideally possess appropriate taxonomic coverage to avoid PCR‐amplification bias, as well as sufficient sequence divergence to resolve species. We used in silico PCR to compare the taxonomic coverage and resolution of newly designed insect metabarcodes (targeting 16 S) with that of existing markers [16 S and cytochrome oxidase c subunit I (COI)] and then compared their efficiency in vitro. Existing metabarcoding primers amplified in silico <75% of insect species with complete mitochondrial genomes available, whereas new primers targeting 16 S provided >90% coverage. Furthermore, metabarcodes targeting COI appeared to introduce taxonomic PCR‐amplification bias, typically amplifying a greater percentage of L epidoptera and D iptera species, while failing to amplify certain orders in silico. To test whether bias predicted in silico was observed in vitro, we created an artificial DNA blend containing equal amounts of DNA from 14 species, representing 11 insect orders and one arachnid. We PCR‐amplified the blend using five primer sets, targeting either COI or 16 S, with high‐throughput amplicon sequencing yielding more than 6 million reads. In vitro results typically corresponded to in silico PCR predictions, with newly designed 16 S primers detecting 11 insect taxa present, thus providing equivalent or better taxonomic coverage than COI metabarcodes. Our results demonstrate that in silico PCR is a useful tool for predicting taxonomic bias in mixed template PCR and that researchers should be wary of potential bias when selecting metabarcoding markers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1755-0998.12265

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clarke, L. J., Soubrier, J., Weyrich, L. S., & Cooper, A.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Clarke, Laurence J.
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-14
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
1160-1170
ISSN
  • 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-0998
OpenAlex
W2051569068
Cited by
351
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6
FWCI
19.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology Resources (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP0991985)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
16S rRNA, mitochondrial COI, PCR bias, taxonomic coverage, primer design, in silico PCR, mitochondrial DNA markers, Lepidoptera, Diptera, insect diversity
MeSH terms
Animals, Electron Transport Complex IV, DNA, Ribosomal, Insecta, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Computational Biology, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Genotyping Techniques

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