MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379743578 · doi:10.1002/edn3.437

Assessing the degradation of environmental <scp>DNA</scp> and <scp>RNA</scp> based on genomic origin in a metabarcoding context

2023· article· en· W4379743578 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaushar Kagzi, Katie L. Millette, Joanne E. Littlefair, Xavier Pochon, Susanna A. Wood, Gregor F. Fussmann, Melania E. Cristescu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsEnvironmental DNABiologyBarcodeContext (archaeology)BiodiversityMolecular markerDNA barcodingTaxonEcologyComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyMicrocosmGeneticsGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Molecular tools of species identification based on eNAs (environmental nucleic acids; environmental DNA [eDNA] and environmental RNA [eRNA]) have the potential to greatly transform biodiversity science. However, the ability of eNAs to obtain “real‐time” biodiversity estimates may be complicated by the differential persistence and degradation dynamics of the molecular template (eDNA or eRNA) and the barcode marker used. Here, we collected water samples over a 28‐day period to comparatively assess species detection using eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding of two distinct barcode markers—a mitochondrial mRNA marker (COI) and a nuclear rRNA marker (18S)—following complete removal of Arthropoda taxa in a semi‐natural freshwater system. Our findings demonstrate that Arthropoda community composition was largely influenced by marker choice, rather than molecular template, individual microcosm, or sampling time point. Furthermore, although eRNA may capture similar species diversity as the established eDNA method, this finding may be marker‐dependent. Although we found little to no difference in decay rates observed among sample groups (COI eDNA, COI eRNA, 18S eDNA, 18S eRNA), this result is likely due to limitations in the ability of eNA‐based metabarcoding to provide a strong correlation between true eNA copy numbers present in the environment and final read counts obtained (following the metabarcoding workflow). Collectively, our findings provide further support for the use of multi‐marker assessments in metabarcoding surveys to unravel the broadest taxonomic diversity possible, highlight the limitations of eNA metabarcoding methods in providing accurate decay rate estimates, as well as establish the need for further comparative studies using both metabarcoding and single‐species detection methods to assess the persistence and degradation dynamics of eNAs for a diverse range of taxa.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental DNASame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207