Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA-based approaches.

By R. King, D. Read, M. Traugott, W. Symondson. Molecular Ecology, 2008

656 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/640c855fb5a160215dc0fb0cb3787e0ac8ba2348

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing (2012, methodology): “In dietary DNA metabarcoding the distinction between quant 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd examine predation on one or a few specific prey or prey groups (see Box 1; reviewed by King et al. 2008a).”
Optimised scat collection protocols for dietary DNA metabarcoding in vertebrates (2017, background): “However, characterising the entire diet requires ‘universal’ markers that are capable of amplifying DNA from any food species (King et al. 2008; Jarman et al. 2013).”
Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications (2009, background): “…in both fishery market (canned products, surimi) and ecology (scats, gut contents), DNA is degraded and present in small quantities that considerably reduce the number of DNA fragments with suitable size for molecular analysis (Lockley and Bardsley 2000; Teletchea et al. 2005; King et al. 2008).”
The diet of deepwater sharks and the benefits of using DNA identification of prey (2010, background): “…biology are providing high-throughput sequencing techniques that enable DNA identification of numerous taxa in large numbers of gut samples (Soininen et al., 2009); the major constraint being the high unit cost, which may decline as the new technologies become mainstream (King et al., 2008).”
Current progress in DNA barcoding and future implications for entomology (2011, methodology): “…using specific primers or antibodies (Asahida et al. 1997; Kohn & Wayne 1997; Zaidi et al. 1999; Farrell et al. 2000; Gariepy et al. 2007; Matheson et al. 2007; Dunshea 2009; Weber & Lundgren 2009; King et al. 2010: reviewed in Sheppard & Harwood 2005; Fournier et al. 2008; King et al. 2008).”
Harbour seals target juvenile salmon of conservation concern (2017, methodology): “Samples were either preserved immediately in the field by adding 300 mL 95% ethanol to the collection jar or were taken to the lab and frozen at –20 °C within 6 h of collection (King et al. 2008).”
Pyrosequencing faecal DNA to determine diet of little penguins: is what goes in what comes out? (2010, neutral): “This involves PCR amplifying suitable markers from dietary samples, sequencing the resultant amplicons and identifying the sequences by comparison to a reference database (e.g. Hofreiter et al. 2000; Passmore et al. 2006; Bradley et al. 2007; Deagle et al. 2007; Clare et al. 2009).”
Methods of estimating marine mammal diets: A review of validation experiments and sources of bias and uncertainty (2012, background): “The strengths and limitations of DNA identification of prey consumed by predators are reviewed by King et al. (2008).”
Revealing secret liaisons: DNA barcoding changes our understanding of food webs (2010, background): “In principle, barcodes may also provide species identification for cast exuviae of immature forms or the otherwise unrecognisable corpses of dead hosts, as long as adequate DNA can be extracted from sampled material (King et al., 2008).”
Natural enemies of the South American moth, Tuta absoluta, in Europe, North Africa and Middle East, and their potential use in pest control strategies (2013, methodology): “…species obtained so far are derived from direct field observation and sampling, and from experi- mental laboratory bioassays, while no studies have been conducted using newly developed analytical techniques, such as the predator gut content molecular analysis (King et al. 2008; Juen et al. 2012).”