The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing
Open accessAbstract
The analysis of food webs and their dynamics facilitates understanding of the mechanistic processes behind community ecology and ecosystem functions. Having accurate techniques for determining dietary ranges and components is critical for this endeavour. While visual analyses and early molecular approaches are highly labour intensive and often lack resolution, recent DNA‐based approaches potentially provide more accurate methods for dietary studies. A suite of approaches have been used based on the identification of consumed species by characterization of DNA present in gut or faecal samples. In one approach, a standardized DNA region (DNA barcode) is PCR amplified, amplicons are sequenced and then compared to a reference database for identification. Initially, this involved sequencing clones from PCR products, and studies were limited in scale because of the costs and effort required. The recent development of next generation sequencing (NGS) has made this approach much more powerful, by allowing the direct characterization of dozens of samples with several thousand sequences per PCR product, and has the potential to reveal many consumed species simultaneously (DNA metabarcoding). Continual improvement of NGS technologies, on‐going decreases in costs and current massive expansion of reference databases make this approach promising. Here we review the power and pitfalls of NGS diet methods. We present the critical factors to take into account when choosing or designing a suitable barcode. Then, we consider both technical and analytical aspects of NGS diet studies. Finally, we discuss the validation of data accuracy including the viability of producing quantitative data.
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
Cites
Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1205106 · Cited by 4,087
Cited by
Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity
Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019 · Cited by 2,082
Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding
TABERLET, P., COISSAC, E., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05470.x · Cited by 1,907
Self-citationLeray, M., Yang, J. Y., Meyer, C. P., Mills, S. C., Agudelo, N., Ranwez, V., Boehm, J. T., & Machida, R. J. (2013) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/1742-9994-10-34 · Cited by 1,636
Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding
Valentini, A., Taberlet, P., Miaud, C., Civade, R., Herder, J., Thomsen, P. F., Bellemain, E., Besnard, A., Coissac, E., Boyer, F., et al. (2016) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.13428 · Cited by 1,252
Self-citationElbrecht, V., & Leese, F. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 · Cited by 765
Metadata
- Authors
- POMPANON, F., DEAGLE, B. E., SYMONDSON, W. O. C., BROWN, D. S., JARMAN, S. N., & TABERLET, P.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-12-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1931-1950
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2114259093
- Cited by
- 1,293
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.32
- 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: Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05403.x
- The paper
- POMPANON, F., DEAGLE, B. E., SYMONDSON, W. O. C., BROWN, D. S., JARMAN, S. N., & TABERLET, P. (2012). Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05403.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.