The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment
Open accessAbstract
Characterization of biodiversity has been extensively used to confidently monitor and assess environmental status. Yet, visual morphology, traditionally and widely used for species identification in coastal and marine ecosystem communities, is tedious and entails limitations. Metabarcoding coupled with high-throughput sequencing represents an alternative to rapidly, accurately and cost-effectively analyze thousands of environmental samples simultaneously, and this method is increasingly used to characterize the metazoan taxonomic composition of a wide variety of environments. However, a comprehensive study benchmarking visual and metabarcoding-based taxonomic inferences that validates this technique for environmental monitoring is still lacking. Here we compare taxonomic inferences of benthic macroinvertebrate samples of known taxonomic composition obtained using alternative metabarcoding protocols based on a combination of different DNA sources, barcodes of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene and amplification conditions. Our results highlight the influence of the metabarcoding protocol in the obtained taxonomic composition and suggest the better performance of an alternative 313 bp length barcode to the traditionally 658 bp length one used for metazoan metabarcoding. Additionally, we show that a biotic index inferred from the list of macroinvertebrate taxa obtained using DNA-based taxonomic assignments is comparable to that inferred using morphological identification. Thus, our analyses prove metabarcoding valid for environmental status assessment and will contribute to accelerating the implementation of this technique to regular monitoring programs.
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
Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M., & Usadel, B. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 · Cited by 65,548
FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies
Magoč, T., & Salzberg, S. L. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · Cited by 15,366
A DNA-Based Registry for All Animal Species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) System
Ratnasingham, S., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066213 · Cited by 2,301
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
Elbrecht, V., & Leese, F. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 · Cited by 765 · cited 4×
“The abovementioned biases inherent to PCR-based analyses can lead to greater recovery of sequences of some species and the exclusion of others (Elbrecht and Leese, 2015; Piñol et al., 2015).”
BackgroundInfluentialPiñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez‐Polo, P., & Agustí, N. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12355 · Cited by 423
Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies
Zimmermann, J., Glöckner, G., Jahn, R., Enke, N., & Gemeinholzer, B. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12336 · Cited by 317
Carew, M. E., Pettigrove, V. J., Metzeling, L., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2013) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/1742-9994-10-45 · Cited by 243
Aylagas, E., Borja, Á., & Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090529 · Cited by 182
Self-citation
Cited by
Ruppert, K. M., Kline, R. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2019) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547 · Cited by 1,231
Hering, D., Borja, A., Jones, J. I., Pont, D., Boets, P., Bouchez, A., Bruce, K., Drakare, S., Hänfling, B., Kahlert, M., et al. (2018) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003 · Cited by 455
Elbrecht, V., Vamos, E. E., Meissner, K., Aroviita, J., & Leese, F. (2017) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12789 · Cited by 385
Wangensteen, O. S., Palacín, C., Guardiola, M., & Turon, X. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4705 · Cited by 312
Scaling up: A guide to high‐throughput genomic approaches for biodiversity analysis
Porter, T. M., & Hajibabaei, M. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14478 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Aylagas, E., Borja, Á., Irigoien, X., & Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Marine Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-06-10
- Volume
- 3
- ISSN
- 2296-7745 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2412804189
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 28.39
- 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: Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmars.2016.00096
- The paper
- Aylagas, E., Borja, Á., Irigoien, X., & Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N. (2016). Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00096
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.