Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41542925›Full record

SynthesisMolecular ecology resources2026

pH-Dependent Degradation of Macrobial Environmental DNA in Water.

Toshiaki S Jo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Toshiaki S JoJapan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1138-9360

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP22J00439Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP22KJ3043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has increasingly been used for aquatic biomonitoring, although interpretation of results needs to consider how environmental factors influence the degradation process of eDNA. This review focuses on pH, which has long been considered a key factor in eDNA degradation although its apparent effect on eDNA degradation has varied across studies. Here I present a synthesis of existing research that summarises what is so far known about the pH dependence of eDNA degradation, and a meta-analysis that demonstrates a nonlinear, upward convex relationship between eDNA decay rates and pH, with modelled eDNA decay rates peaking around pH 8. These results suggest that under slightly alkaline conditions, which are often considered suitable for DNA preservation, eDNA degradation may be accelerated by the promotion of microbial and enzymatic activity. On the other hand, there were substantial inter-study discrepancies in the dataset, suggesting that the present meta-analysis could not fully address the complexity of pH-dependent eDNA degradation. I end this review with an extensive discussion of some possible mechanisms that should be further investigated in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the pH dependence of eDNA degradation. These efforts will help with more accurate predictions of the persistence time and decay rates of eDNA under various environmental conditions, thereby potentially improving our interpretations of eDNA-based biodiversity surveys.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalWaterHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationDNA, EnvironmentalWaterbiomonitoringdegradationenvironmental DNA (eDNA)meta‐analysispHsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41542925
PMCPMC12809876

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.