The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bioinformatic challenges for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals
Open accessAbstract
Almost all empirical studies in ecology have to identify the species involved in the ecological process under examination. DNA metabarcoding, which couples the principles of DNA barcoding with next generation sequencing technology, provides an opportunity to easily produce large amounts of data on biodiversity. Microbiologists have long used metabarcoding approaches, but use of this technique in the assessment of biodiversity in plant and animal communities is under‐explored. Despite its relationship with DNA barcoding, several unique features of DNA metabarcoding justify the development of specific data analysis methodologies. In this review, we describe the bioinformatics tools available for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals, and we revisit others developed for DNA barcoding or microbial metabarcoding. We also discuss the principles and associated tools for evaluating and comparing DNA barcodes in the context of DNA metabarcoding, for designing new custom‐made barcodes adapted to specific ecological question, for dealing with PCR and sequencing errors, and for inferring taxonomical data from sequences.
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
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
Needleman, S. B., & Wunsch, C. D. (1970) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(70)90057-4 · Cited by 11,288
Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering
Huse, S. M., Welch, D. M., Morrison, H. G., & Sogin, M. L. (2010) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02193.x · Cited by 1,346
Hajibabaei, M., Shokralla, S., Zhou, X., Singer, G. A. C., & Baird, D. J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017497 · Cited by 584
Caspase deficiency alters the murine gut microbiome
Brinkman, B. M., Hildebrand, F., Kubica, M., Goosens, D., Del Favero, J., Declercq, W., Raes, J., & Vandenabeele, P. (2011) · Cell Death & Disease · doi:10.1038/cddis.2011.101 · Cited by 70
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
Ancient Biomolecules and Evolutionary Inference
Cappellini, E., Prohaska, A., Racimo, F., Welker, F., Pedersen, M. W., Allentoft, M. E., de Barros Damgaard, P., Gutenbrunner, P., Dunne, J., Hammann, S., et al. (2018) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012002 · Cited by 118
Yu, Y., Shao, M., Zhou, H., Su, F., Guan, P., Ding, L., Ma, T., Zhou, B., Xu, S., Song, S., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32964-1 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- COISSAC, E., RIAZ, T., & PUILLANDRE, N.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1834-1847
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2125275348
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 13.63
- 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
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.