CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 425Environmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high‐throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods

Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez‐Polo, P., Agustí, N.·2015·Molecular Ecology Resources
DOI 10.1111/1755-0998.12355
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The quantification of the biological diversity in environmental samples using high‐throughput DNA sequencing is hindered by the PCR bias caused by variable primer–template mismatches of the individual species. In some dietary studies, there is the added problem that samples are enriched with predator DNA, so often a predator‐specific blocking oligonucleotide is used to alleviate the problem. However, specific blocking oligonucleotides could coblock nontarget species to some degree. Here, we accurately estimate the extent of the PCR biases induced by universal and blocking primers on a mock community prepared with DNA of twelve species of terrestrial arthropods. We also compare universal and blocking primer biases with those induced by variable annealing temperature and number of PCR cycles. The results show that reads of all species were recovered after PCR enrichment at our control conditions (no blocking oligonucleotide, 45 °C annealing temperature and 40 cycles) and high‐throughput sequencing. They also show that the four factors considered biased the final proportions of the species to some degree. Among these factors, the number of primer–template mismatches of each species had a disproportionate effect (up to five orders of magnitude) on the amplification efficiency. In particular, the number of primer–template mismatches explained most of the variation (~3/4) in the amplification efficiency of the species. The effect of blocking oligonucleotide concentration on nontarget species relative abundance was also significant, but less important (below one order of magnitude). Considering the results reported here, the quantitative potential of the technique is limited, and only qualitative results (the species list) are reliable, at least when targeting the barcoding COI region.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1755-0998.12355

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 425

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez‐Polo, P., & Agustí, N.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • CRAG CSIC IRTA UAB UB Cerdanyola del Vallès 08193 Spain
  • Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (ES)
Corresponding author
Piñol, J.
ORCID
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-23
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
819-830
ISSN
  • 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-0998
DOI
10.1111/1755-0998.12355
OpenAlex
W2051331361
Cited by
423
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 9
FWCI
14.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology Resources (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
MINECO (CGL2010-18182, AGL2011-24349)
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
PCR bias, primer-template mismatch, arthropods, COI barcoding, mock communities, amplification efficiency, annealing temperature, dietary assessment, species relative abundance
MeSH terms
Animals, Arthropods, Diagnostic Errors, Molecular Sequence Data, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, DNA Primers, Base Pair Mismatch, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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