Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

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

Quantitative DNA metabarcoding: improved estimates of species proportional biomass using correction factors derived from control material

Open access
Thomas, Austen C., Deagle, Bruce E., Eveson, J. Paige, Harsch, Corie H., Trites, Andrew W.·2016·Molecular Ecology Resources

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding is a powerful new tool allowing characterization of species assemblages using high‐throughput amplicon sequencing. The utility of DNA metabarcoding for quantifying relative species abundances is currently limited by both biological and technical biases which influence sequence read counts. We tested the idea of sequencing 50/50 mixtures of target species and a control species in order to generate relative correction factors (RCF s) that account for multiple sources of bias and are applicable to field studies. RCF s will be most effective if they are not affected by input mass ratio or co‐occurring species. In a model experiment involving three target fish species and a fixed control, we found RCF s did vary with input ratio but in a consistent fashion, and that 50/50 RCF s applied to DNA sequence counts from various mixtures of the target species still greatly improved relative abundance estimates (e.g. average per species error of 19 ± 8% for uncorrected vs. 3 ± 1% for corrected estimates). To demonstrate the use of correction factors in a field setting, we calculated 50/50 RCF s for 18 harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) prey species (RCF s ranging from 0.68 to 3.68). Applying these corrections to field‐collected seal scats affected species percentages from individual samples (Δ 6.7 ± 6.6%) more than population‐level species estimates (Δ 1.7 ± 1.2%). Our results indicate that the 50/50 RCF approach is an effective tool for evaluating and correcting biases in DNA metabarcoding studies. The decision to apply correction factors will be influenced by the feasibility of creating tissue mixtures for the target species, and the level of accuracy needed to meet research objectives.

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 · 10.1111/1755-0998.12490

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 249

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, A. C., Deagle, B. E., Eveson, J. P., Harsch, C. H., & Trites, A. W.
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-18
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
714-726
ISSN
  • 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-0998
OpenAlex
W2175688155
Cited by
249
References
3
FWCI
24.77
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: Quantitative DNA metabarcoding: improved estimates of species proportional biomass using correction factors derived from control material. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1755-0998.12490
The paper
Thomas, A. C., Deagle, B. E., Eveson, J. P., Harsch, C. H., & Trites, A. W. (2016). Quantitative DNA metabarcoding: improved estimates of species proportional biomass using correction factors derived from control material. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12490

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.