One‐locus‐several‐primers: A strategy to improve the taxonomic and haplotypic coverage in diet metabarcoding studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diet metabarcoding analyses, insufficient taxonomic coverage of PCR primer sets generates false negatives that may dramatically distort biodiversity estimates. In this paper, we investigated the taxonomic coverage and complementarity of three cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI) primer sets based on in silico analyses and we conducted an in vivo evaluation using fecal and spider web samples from different invertivores, environments, and geographic locations. Our results underline the lack of predictability of both the coverage and complementarity of individual primer sets: (a) sharp discrepancies exist observed between in silico and in vivo analyses (to the detriment of in silico analyses); (b) both coverage and complementarity depend greatly on the predator and on the taxonomic level at which preys are considered; (c) primer sets’ complementarity is the greatest at fine taxonomic levels (molecular operational taxonomic units [MOTUs] and variants). We then formalized the “one‐locus‐several‐primer‐sets” (OLSP) strategy, that is, the use of several primer sets that target the same locus (here the first part of the COI gene) and the same group of taxa (here invertebrates). The proximal aim of the OLSP strategy is to minimize false negatives by increasing total coverage through multiple primer sets. We illustrate that the OLSP strategy is especially relevant from this perspective since distinct variants within the same MOTUs were not equally detected across all primer sets. Furthermore, the OLSP strategy produces largely overlapping and comparable sequences, which cannot be achieved when targeting different loci. This facilitates the use of haplotypic diversity information contained within metabarcoding datasets, for example, for phylogeography and finer analyses of prey–predator interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".