Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

What are Populations and Communities?00:30

What are Populations and Communities?

37.6K
Overview
37.6K
Diversity of Archaea I01:30

Diversity of Archaea I

605
Archaea, a domain of single-celled microorganisms, are classified into five major phyla based on genetic and biochemical characteristics: Euryarchaeota, Crenarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, Korarchaeota, and Nanoarchaeota. Among these, the phylum Euryarchaeota is notable for its remarkable diversity in morphology, metabolism, and ecological adaptations.Morphological and Metabolic DiversityMembers of Euryarchaeota exhibit a variety of cellular shapes, including rods and cocci. Their metabolic pathways...
605
Cell Diversity01:13

Cell Diversity

5.0K
The concept of a cell started with microscopic observations of dead cork tissue by Robert Hooke in 1665. Hooke coined the term "cell" based on the resemblance of the small subdivisions in the cork to the rooms that monks inhabited, called cells. About ten years later, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek became the first person to observe the living and moving cells under a microscope. In the century that followed, the theory that cells represented the basic unit of life developed.
Multicellular...
5.0K
Diversity of Archaea II01:24

Diversity of Archaea II

508
Archaea, one of the three domains of life, exhibit remarkable diversity and adaptability, thriving in both extreme and moderate environments. Historically, most identified archaea have been classified into two major phyla: Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. However, recent molecular studies have expanded this classification to include three additional phyla: Thaumarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota, and Korarchaeota, each exhibiting unique characteristics and ecological roles.Thaumarchaeota: Mesophiles...
508
Diversity of Protists I01:15

Diversity of Protists I

1.1K
Excavata is a diverse group of protists that includes both chemoorganotrophic and phototrophic species, with some thriving in anaerobic environments. Among the key groups within Excavata are diplomonads and parabasalids, which are flagellated protists that lack mitochondria and chloroplasts. These microorganisms typically inhabit anoxic environments, such as the intestines of animals, where they exist either symbiotically or as parasites, relying on fermentation for energy production. Some...
1.1K
Diversity of Protists II01:27

Diversity of Protists II

1.0K
Alveolates are a group of organisms recognized by the presence of alveoli, which are cytoplasmic sacs located beneath the cell membrane. While their function remains uncertain, alveoli may help regulate water balance by controlling how much water enters and leaves the cell. In dinoflagellates, these structures may serve as armor plates. There are three major types of alveolates: ciliates, which move using cilia; dinoflagellates, which use flagella for movement; and apicomplexans, which are...
1.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Constructing a lower-bound estimate of the global number of insect species on a hyperdiverse empirical foundation.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2026
Same author

How can biological databases support the new UN mechanism for benefit-sharing from digital sequence information?

Scientific data·2026
Same author

Barcoding Megadiversity: An Arthropod Database from Sites in the Neotropical Eastern Pacific Bioregion.

Scientific data·2026
Same author

Towards a Complete DNA Barcode Library of Austrian Lepidoptera.

Insects·2026
Same author

A multi-modal dataset for insect biodiversity with imagery and DNA at the trap and individual level.

Scientific data·2026
Same author

DNA Barcode Reference Library for European Ants: A Roadmap for Phylogeography and Species Discovery.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

From Gene Copies to Cell Numbers: Advancing Quantitative Approaches in Protistan Ecology Using Digital PCR.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

EasyCen: A Lightweight Framework for Centromere Localisation and Repeat-Organisation Profiling in Telomere-to-Telomere Genomes.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

A Practical Framework for GT-Seq Panel Optimization.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

Comparison of Environmental DNA and Bulk DNA Metabarcoding for Assessing Terrestrial Arthropod Diversity Across Three Habitat Types on Guam.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

pr2-Wormifier: A Bioinformatics Pipeline to Create Custom Reference Databases for Improved Metabarcoding of Marine Protists.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
Same journal

Individual Identification of Prey in Carnivore Scats.

Molecular ecology resources·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 29, 2026

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps
05:28

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps

Published on: January 19, 2020

5.9K

Metabarcoding a diverse arthropod mock community.

Thomas W A Braukmann1, Natalia V Ivanova1, Sean W J Prosser1

  • 1Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Molecular Ecology Resources
|February 20, 2019
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

DNA metabarcoding for biodiversity monitoring faces challenges in species detection. Protocol variations significantly impact species recovery and perceived diversity, highlighting the need for sufficient sequencing coverage.

Keywords:
DNA barcodingcommunity ecologyecological geneticsenvironmental DNA

More Related Videos

Technique for Studying Arthropod and Microbial Communities within Tree Tissues
05:30

Technique for Studying Arthropod and Microbial Communities within Tree Tissues

Published on: November 16, 2014

10.8K
A Standardized Procedure for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms in Chile by Metabarcoding Analysis
09:47

A Standardized Procedure for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms in Chile by Metabarcoding Analysis

Published on: August 26, 2021

6.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 29, 2026

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps
05:28

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps

Published on: January 19, 2020

5.9K
Technique for Studying Arthropod and Microbial Communities within Tree Tissues
05:30

Technique for Studying Arthropod and Microbial Communities within Tree Tissues

Published on: November 16, 2014

10.8K
A Standardized Procedure for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms in Chile by Metabarcoding Analysis
09:47

A Standardized Procedure for Monitoring Harmful Algal Blooms in Chile by Metabarcoding Analysis

Published on: August 26, 2021

6.1K

Area of Science:

  • Ecology
  • Genetics
  • Bioinformatics

Background:

  • DNA metabarcoding is a powerful tool for biodiversity assessment.
  • Detecting all species in a sample can be challenging due to variations in biomass, mitome copy number, and PCR primers.
  • Optimizing protocols is crucial for accurate biodiversity monitoring.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how different DNA extraction and pooling protocols affect species recovery in DNA metabarcoding.
  • To evaluate the impact of sequencing platforms and primer sets on species detection accuracy.
  • To understand factors influencing read abundance uniformity across taxa.

Main Methods:

  • A mock community of 374 terrestrial arthropod species was created.
  • Four DNA extraction and pooling protocols were tested: Bulk Abdomen, Bulk Leg, Composite Leg, and Single Leg.
  • Amplicons were sequenced on three platforms: Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM, and Ion Torrent S5.
  • Primer sets were also varied to assess their influence.

Main Results:

  • The Single Leg protocol yielded the most efficient species recovery due to uniform amplicon abundance.
  • Among pooled PCR treatments, Bulk Abdomen showed more uniform read abundance than Bulk Leg or Composite Leg.
  • Sequencing platform had minimal impact on species recovery, though MiSeq offered higher quality.
  • Primer choice significantly influenced species recovery and evenness.

Conclusions:

  • Protocol choice, particularly DNA extraction and pooling strategy, critically affects DNA metabarcoding outcomes.
  • Achieving sufficient sequencing coverage is essential to overcome protocol-induced biases and accurately assess biodiversity.
  • Standardization of protocols or careful consideration of their impact is necessary for reliable biodiversity monitoring.