Towards next‐generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding

By P. Taberlet, É. Coissac, F. Pompanon, C. Brochmann, Eske Willerslev. Molecular Ecology, 2012

1,552 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/960dfde47f2e7b1dffe1f2f9242197c7d1783ec7

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

The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? (2013, background): “In food webs, both stable isotopic signatures (Vanderklift & Ponsard 2003) and environmental DNA techniques may be used (Taberlet et al. 2012 ).”
Insights into global diatom distribution and diversity in the world’s ocean (2016, background): “Limitations have been identified for metabarcoding (28, 29), mainly by its dependency on PCR (and thus exposure to amplification artifacts) (30), by its susceptibility to DNA sequencing errors (31), and by the considerable investment required to build comprehensive taxonomic reference libraries (32)”
Selecting cost effective and policy-relevant biological indicators for European monitoring of soil biodiversity and ecosystem function (2016, background): “For instance, recent 529 developments in the measurement of environmental DNA (e-DNA, Taberlet et al., 2012; Wilcox et 530 al., 2013; Bohmann et al., 2014), would greatly increase the ease of determining faunal communities 531 using DNA-based approaches.”
How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? (2015, methodology): “The technology and application of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding in ecology has been reviewed extensively elsewhere (see for example Valentini, Pompanon, & Taberlet, 2009; Creer et al., 2010; Taberlet et al., 2012; Bohmann et al., 2014) therefore just a brief introduction is provided here.”
Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding‐based macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring (2017, methodology): “…from bulk samples, a standardised marker gene amplified and sequenced using high-throughput sequencing followed by comparison against reference databases allowing for cost-efficient and reliable community assessments (Ratnasingham & Hebert 2007; Hajibabaei et al. 2011; Taberlet et al. 2012).”
The ecologist's field guide to sequence‐based identification of biodiversity (2016, background): “…gene assessments are more generally known as ‘amplicon’, ‘metagenetic’ (Creer et al. 2010) and ‘metasystematic’ (Hajibabaei 2012) sequencing among many others, but in an attempt to standardize vocabulary, nomenclature is currently converging towards the term ‘metabarcoding’ (Taberlet et al. 2012a).”
A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents (2013, methodology): “This so-called “metabarcoding” approach [5] has been used as a powerful means to understand the diversity and distribution of meiofauna [6].”
Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity (2015, background): “Automatic analysis of phenotypes (Deans et al. 2015) and next-generation sequencing combined with bioinformatics (Taberlet et al. 2012) have the potential to identify species from large samples, documenting patterns of trait variation and linking genetic data with particular phenotypes.”
Resolving the psyllid tree of life: phylogenomic analyses of the superfamily Psylloidea (Hemiptera) (2018, background): “A nonindexed species pool approach is typically referred to as metagenomics, or voucher metagenomics when each sample in a pool is linked to a voucher specimen (Taberlet et al., 2012; Crampton-Platt et al., 2016).”