The DOI matches its Crossref record.
INVITED REVIEW: Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA‐based approaches
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Taxon‐specific PCR for DNA barcoding arthropod prey in bat faeces
ZEALE, M. R. K., BUTLIN, R. K., BARKER, G. L. A., LEES, D. C., & JONES, G. (2011) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02920.x · Cited by 593
Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield
Karp, D. S., Mendenhall, C. D., Sandí, R. F., Chaumont, N., Ehrlich, P. R., Hadly, E. A., & Daily, G. C. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12173 · Cited by 432
The trophodynamics of marine top predators: Current knowledge, recent advances and challenges
Young, J. W., Hunt, B. P. V., Cook, T. R., Llopiz, J. K., Hazen, E. L., Pethybridge, H. R., Ceccarelli, D., Lorrain, A., Olson, R. J., Allain, V., et al. (2015) · Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography · doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.05.015 · Cited by 195
Global Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches to Analyze Coastal Shelf Food Webs
Kytinou, E., Sini, M., Issaris, Y., & Katsanevakis, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00636 · Cited by 17
Dietary DNA Metabarcoding From Animal Fecal Samples
McConnell, R. D., Jarrett, C., Ferreira, D. F., Powell, L. L., Quiñones, A. L. S., Dominoni, D. M., & Welch, A. J. (2026) · Current Protocols · doi:10.1002/cpz1.70226 · Cited by 2
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.