Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 553

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sequence Depth, Not PCR Replication, Improves Ecological Inference from Next Generation DNA Sequencing

Open access
Smith, Dylan P., Peay, Kabir G.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Recent advances in molecular approaches and DNA sequencing have greatly progressed the field of ecology and allowed for the study of complex communities in unprecedented detail. Next generation sequencing (NGS) can reveal powerful insights into the diversity, composition, and dynamics of cryptic organisms, but results may be sensitive to a number of technical factors, including molecular practices used to generate amplicons, sequencing technology, and data processing. Despite the popularity of some techniques over others, explicit tests of the relative benefits they convey in molecular ecology studies remain scarce. Here we tested the effects of PCR replication, sequencing depth, and sequencing platform on ecological inference drawn from environmental samples of soil fungi. We sequenced replicates of three soil samples taken from pine biomes in North America represented by pools of either one, two, four, eight, or sixteen PCR replicates with both 454 pyrosequencing and Illumina MiSeq. Increasing the number of pooled PCR replicates had no detectable effect on measures of α- and β-diversity. Pseudo-β-diversity - which we define as dissimilarity between re-sequenced replicates of the same sample - decreased markedly with increasing sampling depth. The total richness recovered with Illumina was significantly higher than with 454, but measures of α- and β-diversity between a larger set of fungal samples sequenced on both platforms were highly correlated. Our results suggest that molecular ecology studies will benefit more from investing in robust sequencing technologies than from replicating PCRs. This study also demonstrates the potential for continuous integration of older datasets with newer technology.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0090234

Cites

3 of 3 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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 553

Metadata

Authors
Smith, D. P., & Peay, K. G.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-02-28
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e90234
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006282417
Cited by
553
References
3
FWCI
46.49
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sequence Depth, Not PCR Replication, Improves Ecological Inference from Next Generation DNA Sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0090234
The paper
Smith, D. P., & Peay, K. G. (2014). Sequence Depth, Not PCR Replication, Improves Ecological Inference from Next Generation DNA Sequencing. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090234

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.