Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 688

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples

Alberdi, Antton, Aizpurua, Ostaizka, Gilbert, M. Thomas P., Bohmann, Kristine·2018·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Metabarcoding of environmental samples has many challenges and limitations that require carefully considered laboratory and analysis workflows to ensure reliable results. We explore how decisions regarding study design, laboratory set‐up, and bioinformatic processing affect the final results, and provide guidelines for reliable study of environmental samples. We evaluate the performance of four primer sets targeting COI and 16S regions characterizing arthropod diversity in bat faecal samples, and investigate how metabarcoding results are affected by parameters including: (1) number of PCR replicates per sample, (2) sequencing depth, (3) PCR replicate processing strategy (i.e. either additively, by combining the sequences obtained from the PCR replicates, or restrictively, by only retaining sequences that occur in multiple PCR replicates for each sample), (4) minimum copy number for sequences to be retained, (5) chimera removal, and (6) similarity thresholds for Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) clustering. Lastly, we measure within‐ and between‐taxa dissimilarities when using sequences from public databases to determine the most appropriate thresholds for OTU clustering and taxonomy assignment. Our results show that the use of multiple primer sets reduces taxonomic biases and increases taxonomic coverage. Taxonomic profiles resulting from each primer set are principally affected by how many PCR replicates are carried out per sample and how sequences are filtered across them, the sequence copy number threshold and the OTU clustering threshold. We also report considerable diversity differences between PCR replicates from each sample. Sequencing depth increases the dissimilarity between PCR replicates unless the bioinformatic strategies to remove allegedly artefactual sequences are adjusted according to the number of analysed sequences. Finally, we show that the appropriate identity thresholds for OTU clustering and taxonomy assignment differ between markers. Metabarcoding of complex environmental samples ideally requires (1) investigation of whether more than one primer sets targeting the same taxonomic group is needed to offset primer biases, (2) more than one PCR replicate per sample, (3) bioinformatic processing of sequences that balance diversity detection with removal of artefactual sequences, and (4) empirical selection of OTU clustering and taxonomy assignment thresholds tailored to each marker and the obtained taxa.

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 · 10.1111/2041-210x.12849

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Cited by

See all 688

Metadata

Authors
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P., & Bohmann, K.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
134-147
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2724989966
Cited by
688
References
36
FWCI
37.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12849
The paper
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P., & Bohmann, K. (2018). Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12849

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.