Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 63

1.

Towards robust and repeatable sampling methods in eDNA-based studies.

Dickie IA, Boyer S, Buckley HL, Duncan RP, Gardner PP, Hogg ID, Holdaway RJ, Lear G, Makiola A, Morales SE, Powell JR, Weaver L.

Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 May 26. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12907. [Epub ahead of print] Review.

PMID:
29802793
2.

Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities.

Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, Seymour M, Lacoursière-Roussel A, Altermatt F, Creer S, Bista I, Lodge DM, de Vere N, Pfrender ME, Bernatchez L.

Mol Ecol. 2017 Nov;26(21):5872-5895. doi: 10.1111/mec.14350. Epub 2017 Oct 26. Review.

3.

eDNA metabarcoding as a new surveillance approach for coastal Arctic biodiversity.

Lacoursière-Roussel A, Howland K, Normandeau E, Grey EK, Archambault P, Deiner K, Lodge DM, Hernandez C, Leduc N, Bernatchez L.

Ecol Evol. 2018 Jul 13;8(16):7763-7777. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4213. eCollection 2018 Aug.

4.

Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding.

Evans NT, Olds BP, Renshaw MA, Turner CR, Li Y, Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Pfrender ME, Lamberti GA, Lodge DM.

Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Jan;16(1):29-41. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12433. Epub 2015 Jun 18.

5.

Estimating species richness using environmental DNA.

Olds BP, Jerde CL, Renshaw MA, Li Y, Evans NT, Turner CR, Deiner K, Mahon AR, Brueseke MA, Shirey PD, Pfrender ME, Lodge DM, Lamberti GA.

Ecol Evol. 2016 May 30;6(12):4214-26. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2186. eCollection 2016 Jun.

6.

Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding.

Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF, Bellemain E, Besnard A, Coissac E, Boyer F, Gaboriaud C, Jean P, Poulet N, Roset N, Copp GH, Geniez P, Pont D, Argillier C, Baudoin JM, Peroux T, Crivelli AJ, Olivier A, Acqueberge M, Le Brun M, Møller PR, Willerslev E, Dejean T.

Mol Ecol. 2016 Feb;25(4):929-42. doi: 10.1111/mec.13428. Epub 2016 Jan 18.

PMID:
26479867
7.

Evaluation of detection probabilities at the water-filtering and initial PCR steps in environmental DNA metabarcoding using a multispecies site occupancy model.

Doi H, Fukaya K, Oka SI, Sato K, Kondoh M, Miya M.

Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 5;9(1):3581. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40233-1.

8.

Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA.

Port JA, O'Donnell JL, Romero-Maraccini OC, Leary PR, Litvin SY, Nickols KJ, Yamahara KM, Kelly RP.

Mol Ecol. 2016 Jan;25(2):527-41. doi: 10.1111/mec.13481. Epub 2015 Dec 24.

9.

Toward an ecoregion scale evaluation of eDNA metabarcoding primers: A case study for the freshwater fish biodiversity of the Murray-Darling Basin (Australia).

Bylemans J, Gleeson DM, Hardy CM, Furlan E.

Ecol Evol. 2018 Aug 5;8(17):8697-8712. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4387. eCollection 2018 Sep.

10.

The importance of molecular markers and primer design when characterizing biodiversity from environmental DNA.

Freeland JR.

Genome. 2017 Apr;60(4):358-374. doi: 10.1139/gen-2016-0100. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

PMID:
28177833
11.

Detection of a diverse marine fish fauna using environmental DNA from seawater samples.

Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL, Møller PR, Rasmussen M, Willerslev E.

PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041732. Epub 2012 Aug 29.

12.

Effects of sampling effort on biodiversity patterns estimated from environmental DNA metabarcoding surveys.

Grey EK, Bernatchez L, Cassey P, Deiner K, Deveney M, Howland KL, Lacoursière-Roussel A, Leong SCY, Li Y, Olds B, Pfrender ME, Prowse TAA, Renshaw MA, Lodge DM.

Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 11;8(1):8843. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27048-2.

13.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding assays to detect invasive invertebrate species in the Great Lakes.

Klymus KE, Marshall NT, Stepien CA.

PLoS One. 2017 May 18;12(5):e0177643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177643. eCollection 2017.

14.

Improving herpetological surveys in eastern North America using the environmental DNA method.

Lacoursière-Roussel A, Dubois Y, Normandeau E, Bernatchez L.

Genome. 2016 Nov;59(11):991-1007. Epub 2016 Aug 30.

15.

How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding?

Ficetola GF, Taberlet P, Coissac E.

Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 May;16(3):604-7. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12508.

PMID:
27062589
16.

A framework for inferring biological communities from environmental DNA.

Shelton AO, O'Donnell JL, Samhouri JF, Lowell N, Williams GD, Kelly RP.

Ecol Appl. 2016 Sep;26(6):1645-1659. doi: 10.1890/15-1733.1.

PMID:
27755698
17.
18.

The importance of including imperfect detection models in eDNA experimental design.

Willoughby JR, Wijayawardena BK, Sundaram M, Swihart RK, DeWoody JA.

Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Jul;16(4):837-44. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12531. Epub 2016 Apr 24.

PMID:
27037675
19.

Environmental DNA reveals quantitative patterns of fish biodiversity in large rivers despite its downstream transportation.

Pont D, Rocle M, Valentini A, Civade R, Jean P, Maire A, Roset N, Schabuss M, Zornig H, Dejean T.

Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 10;8(1):10361. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28424-8.

20.

Development and application of an eDNA method to detect and quantify a pathogenic parasite in aquatic ecosystems.

Huver JR, Koprivnikar J, Johnson PT, Whyard S.

Ecol Appl. 2015 Jun;25(4):991-1002.

Supplemental Content

Support Center