Approach |
example |
pros |
cons |
Combining many metabarcodes in the same study
|
Li et al. (2023)
Analyzed freshwater biodiversity using four primers, focusing on
bacteria; micro-eukaryotes; insects and fish
|
Good coverage of biodiversity
Resolution can be high for the selected taxa
|
Costly
Some taxon will always be missing
|
Universal markers
|
Holman et al. (2021) performed a joint biogeographical analysis of
marine animals, protists and bacteria
|
Relatively cheap
In principle, might cover the whole tree of life
|
Amplification rate and resolution are often heterogeneous across
taxa
|
Combining universal and specific metabarcodes
|
Bloor et al. (2021) combined three universal (bacteria, eukaryotes,
fungi) and four specific (seed plants, insects, springtails and
earthworms) markers for a multi-trophic analysis of soil diversity
|
Good information on key groups
Reduces the number of unrepresented taxa
|
Costly
Resolution can be strongly heterogeneous across taxa
|
Multiplex of primers
|
Govender et al. (2022) used six primer cocktails to analyze the
diversity of 14 zooplankton taxa
|
Potentially excellent resolution
Potentially excellent coverage of the tree of life
Cheaper than analyzing each taxon separately
|
Methodological developments required to optimize the multiplex
Bioinformatics challenges
|
Shotgun sequencing
|
Pedersen et al. (2016) used ancient DNA to reconstruct post-glacial
colonization patterns of plants, mammals and fish
|
Bypasses many limitations of metabarcoding (amplification, abundance)
Can exploit the whole genomic DNA
Can cover the whole tree of life
Allows authentication of ancient eDNA
|
Assignation heavily depends on reference databases
Very costly
Complex analytical pipelines
|