2021
DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13780
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An assessment of minimum sequence copy thresholds for identifying and reducing the prevalence of artefacts in dietary metabarcoding data

Abstract: Metabarcoding provides a powerful tool for ecological studies of biodiversity and trophic interactions (Deiner et al., 2017;Taberlet et al., 2018). By combining high-throughput sequencing (HTS) with DNA barcoding, large volumes of high-resolution data can be generated from many samples simultaneously (Taberlet et al., 2018). As an accurate means of detecting and identifying not just common species, but also cryptic and rare species, metabarcoding has in many cases superseded traditional methods such as morphol… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
121
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 92 publications
1
121
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Illumina Nano cartridge run generated 750,645 reads. Highthroughput sequencing data for the animal component of Telfair's skink diet followed the bioinformatic process of Drake et al (2021):…”
Section: Bioinformaticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Illumina Nano cartridge run generated 750,645 reads. Highthroughput sequencing data for the animal component of Telfair's skink diet followed the bioinformatic process of Drake et al (2021):…”
Section: Bioinformaticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of these biases further compound issues surrounding the diversity of interactions detected and may result in large compartments of the ecological network being excluded, or connectance reduced between multiple layers (Figure 3). There are several key methods well‐suited to the elucidation of taxonomic biases in the metabarcoding process, from in silico simulations of primer performance and bias through to the use of mock communities (Braukmann et al., 2019; Drake et al., 2021; Elbrecht & Leese, 2016b). Understanding the biases present in the resultant data is crucial and can be used to rationalise some omissions or questionable results, but these biases are largely unavoidable.…”
Section: Metabarcoding Biasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stringent use of both negative and positive controls throughout the experimental process, and implementation of additional safeguards like spatial separation of pre‐ and post‐PCR samples and oil sealing of reactions (e.g. Kitson et al., 2019), are essential to ensure confidence in the study outcomes (Drake et al., 2021; Taberlet et al., 2018). A key aspect of this is the choice of bioinformatics process, which can profoundly affect the data output and thus any ecological inferences subsequently drawn (Clare et al., 2016).…”
Section: True Versus False Positivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…where S is the number of samples, T is the number of prey MOTUs, n i,k is the number of sequences of prey item i in sample k. We did not use an occurrence-based metric (i.e., presence/absence of taxa) because it often overestimates low-frequency taxa (including potential contamination) in sequencing data, and is sensitive to the data filter threshold (Deagle et al, 2019). To compare efficiency and consistency of the 12S and 16S primer sets, we used four filtering thresholds (0.1, 1, 3, and 5%) (Drake et al, 2021). Under each filter threshold, we obtained prey taxon richness based on RRA using the vegan package (Oksanen et al, 2020) in R v4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2021).…”
Section: Dietary Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%