The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ITS as an environmental DNA barcode for fungi: an in silico approach reveals potential PCR biases
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: During the last 15 years the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of nuclear DNA has been used as a target for analyzing fungal diversity in environmental samples, and has recently been selected as the standard marker for fungal DNA barcoding. In this study we explored the potential amplification biases that various commonly utilized ITS primers might introduce during amplification of different parts of the ITS region in samples containing mixed templates ('environmental barcoding'). We performed in silico PCR analyses with commonly used primer combinations using various ITS datasets obtained from public databases as templates. RESULTS: Some of the ITS primers, such as ITS1-F, were hampered with a high proportion of mismatches relative to the target sequences, and most of them appeared to introduce taxonomic biases during PCR. Some primers, e.g. ITS1-F, ITS1 and ITS5, were biased towards amplification of basidiomycetes, whereas others, e.g. ITS2, ITS3 and ITS4, were biased towards ascomycetes. The assumed basidiomycete-specific primer ITS4-B only amplified a minor proportion of basidiomycete ITS sequences, even under relaxed PCR conditions. Due to systematic length differences in the ITS2 region as well as the entire ITS, we found that ascomycetes will more easily amplify than basidiomycetes using these regions as targets. This bias can be avoided by using primers amplifying ITS1 only, but this would imply preferential amplification of 'non-dikarya' fungi. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ITS primers have to be selected carefully, especially when used for high-throughput sequencing of environmental samples. We suggest that different primer combinations or different parts of the ITS region should be analyzed in parallel, or that alternative ITS primers should be searched for.
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
Characterization of the oral fungal microbiome (mycobiome) in healthy individuals
Ghannoum, M. A., Jurevic, R. J., Mukherjee, P. K., Cui, F., Sikaroodi, M., Naqvi, A., & Gillevet, P. M. (2010) · PLoS Pathogens · doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000713 · Cited by 1,150 · cited 1×
“Either the ITS1 or the ITS2 region have been targeted in recent high-throughput sequencing studies [14-17], because the entire ITS region is still too long for 454 sequencing or other high-throughput sequencing methods.”
Background
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-citationNext-Generation Sequencing Technology: Current Trends and Advancements
Satam, H., Joshi, K., Mangrolia, U., Waghoo, S., Zaidi, G., Rawool, S., Thakare, R. P., Banday, S., Mishra, A. K., Das, G., et al. (2023) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology12070997 · Cited by 1,299
Environmental metabarcodes for insects: in silicoPCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias
Clarke, L. J., Soubrier, J., Weyrich, L. S., & Cooper, A. (2014) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12265 · Cited by 351
Ruiz‐Gaitán, A., Moret, A. M., Tasias‐Pitarch, M., Aleixandre‐López, A. I., Martínez‐Morel, H., Calabuig, E., Salavert‐Lletí, M., Ramírez, P., López‐Hontangas, J. L., Hagen, F., et al. (2018) · Mycoses · doi:10.1111/myc.12781 · Cited by 343
Metadata
- Authors
- Bellemain, E., Carlsen, T., Brochmann, C., Coissac, E., Taberlet, P., & Kauserud, H.
- Venue
- BMC Microbiology
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 189
- ISSN
- 1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097769208
- Cited by
- 1,148
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 47.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.