Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 800

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?

Open access
Deagle, Bruce E., Thomas, Austen C., McInnes, Julie C., Clarke, Laurence J., Vesterinen, Eero J., Clare, Elizabeth L., Kartzinel, Tyler R., Eveson, J. Paige·2019·Molecular Ecology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Advances in DNA sequencing technology have revolutionized the field of molecular analysis of trophic interactions, and it is now possible to recover counts of food DNA sequences from a wide range of dietary samples. But what do these counts mean? To obtain an accurate estimate of a consumer's diet should we work strictly with data sets summarizing frequency of occurrence of different food taxa, or is it possible to use relative number of sequences? Both approaches are applied to obtain semi‐quantitative diet summaries, but occurrence data are often promoted as a more conservative and reliable option due to taxa‐specific biases in recovery of sequences. We explore representative dietary metabarcoding data sets and point out that diet summaries based on occurrence data often overestimate the importance of food consumed in small quantities (potentially including low‐level contaminants) and are sensitive to the count threshold used to define an occurrence. Our simulations indicate that using relative read abundance ( RRA ) information often provides a more accurate view of population‐level diet even with moderate recovery biases incorporated; however, RRA summaries are sensitive to recovery biases impacting common diet taxa. Both approaches are more accurate when the mean number of food taxa in samples is small. The ideas presented here highlight the need to consider all sources of bias and to justify the methods used to interpret count data in dietary metabarcoding studies. We encourage researchers to continue addressing methodological challenges and acknowledge unanswered questions to help spur future investigations in this rapidly developing area of research.

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/mec.14734

Cites

6 of 6 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

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. 10.1111/mec.14474 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/2041-210X.12849 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04898.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/ece3.773 · DOI
  5. 10.1186/2049-2618-2-11 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1890/08-2207.1 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/icesjms/fsm152 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Biffi M., 2017, Novel insights into the diet of the Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) using next‐generation sequencing molecular analyses, Journal of Mammalogy, 98, 1497
  9. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02974.x · doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02974.x
  10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083152 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/mec.12531 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/s41598-017-14984-8 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/eva.12225 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1111/mec.12519 · doi:10.1111/mec.12519
  15. 10.1111/1755-0998.12265 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.3389/fevo.2016.00015 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/1755-0998.12188 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1007/s10592-010-0096-6 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04158.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/1755-0998.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1007/s10592-006-9197-7 · DOI
  22. Edgar R. C.(2017).UNBIAS: An attempt to correct abundance bias in 16S sequencing with limited success.bioRxiv 124149. · DOI
  23. 10.1111/1755-0998.12309 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/1755-0998.12703 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/aobpla/plx015 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/bfgp/elu035 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144956 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.mib.2004.04.015 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1371/journal.pone.0159133 · DOI
  30. 10.1642/AUK-15-176.1 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/mec.12552 · doi:10.1111/mec.12552
  32. 10.1038/nrg.2017.44 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.3354/meps12165 · DOI
  34. 10.1371/journal.pone.0099722 · DOI
  35. 10.1371/journal.pone.0082227 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082227
  36. Jusino M. A., 2017, An improved method for utilizing high‐throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals, PeerJ
  37. 10.1073/pnas.1503283112 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1038/s41559-017-0413-2 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03613.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1111/2041-210X.12647 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12647
  41. 10.1038/s41598-017-17333-x · DOI · Paper page
  42. Laake J., 2002, Pinniped diet composition: A comparison of estimation models, Fishery Bulletin, 100, 434
  43. 10.1111/1365-2664.12598 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1007/s00294-015-0482-1 · DOI
  45. 10.1111/2041-210X.12677 · DOI
  46. 10.1111/mec.14245 · DOI
  47. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00277 · DOI
  48. 10.1371/journal.pone.0124671 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1515/dna-2015-0021 · DOI
  50. 10.1111/nph.12923 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1111/2041-210X.12869 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Olova N. Krueger F. Andrews S. Oxley D. Berrens R. V. Branco M. R. &Reik W.(2017).Comparison of whole‐genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data.bioRxiv 165449. · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.022 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.022
  54. 10.1007/s00216-014-8435-y · DOI
  55. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05403.x · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.1038/srep27282 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1111/mec.13481 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058971 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1139/gen-2015-0229 · DOI
  60. 10.1111/2041-210X.12435 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/1755-0998.12402 · DOI · Paper page
  62. 10.1186/1742-9994-6-16 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1186/s12983-016-0150-4 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1038/s41598-017-12501-5 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1111/fog.12204 · doi:10.1111/fog.12204
  66. 10.1111/mec.12831 · doi:10.1111/mec.12831
  67. 10.1093/oso/9780198767220.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1111/1755-0998.12490 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1111/mec.12523 · DOI
  70. 10.1139/cjfas-2015-0558 · DOI
  71. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165252 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1139/cjz-2016-0253 · DOI
  73. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02352.x · DOI · Paper page
  74. 10.1111/2041-210X.12960 · DOI
  75. 10.1111/mec.13564 · DOI
  76. 10.1007/s00442-014-2933-7 · DOI
  77. 10.1038/nature12921 · DOI · Paper page
  78. 10.1038/srep41909 · DOI
  79. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00198.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 800

Metadata

Authors
Deagle, B. E., Thomas, A. C., McInnes, J. C., Clarke, L. J., Vesterinen, E. J., Clare, E. L., Kartzinel, T. R., & Eveson, J. P.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-17
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
391-406
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2952640720
Cited by
800
References
6
FWCI
45.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.