Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

INVITED REVIEW: Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA‐based approaches

Open access
KING, R. A., READ, D. S., TRAUGOTT, M., SYMONDSON, W. O. C.·2008·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Molecular analysis of predation, through polymerase chain reaction amplification of prey remains within the faeces or digestive systems of predators, is a rapidly growing field, impeded by a lack of readily accessible advice on best practice. Here, we review the techniques used to date and provide guidelines accessible to those new to this field or from a different molecular biology background. Optimization begins with field collection, sample preservation, predator dissection and DNA extraction techniques, all designed to ensure good quality, uncontaminated DNA from semidigested samples. The advantages of nuclear vs. mitochondrial DNA as primer targets are reviewed, along with choice of genes and advice on primer design to maximize specificity and detection periods following ingestion of the prey by the predators. Primer and assay optimization are discussed, including cross‐amplification tests and calibratory feeding experiments. Once primers have been made, the screening of field samples must guard against (through appropriate controls) cross contamination. Multiplex polymerase chain reactions provide a means of screening for many different species simultaneously. We discuss visualization of amplicons on gels, with and without incorporation of fluorescent primers. In more specialized areas, we examine the utility of temperature and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis to examine responses of predators to prey diversity, and review the potential of quantitative polymerase chain reaction systems to quantify predation. Alternative routes by which prey DNA might get into the guts of a predator (scavenging, secondary predation) are highlighted. We look ahead to new technologies, including microarrays and pyrosequencing, which might one day be applied to this field.

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/j.1365-294x.2007.03613.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
KING, R. A., READ, D. S., TRAUGOTT, M., & SYMONDSON, W. O. C.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-14
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
947-963
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W1959113564
Cited by
657
References
0
FWCI
30.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: INVITED REVIEW: Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA‐based approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03613.x
The paper
KING, R. A., READ, D. S., TRAUGOTT, M., & SYMONDSON, W. O. C. (2008). INVITED REVIEW: Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA‐based approaches. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03613.x

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.