Literature DB >> 27768244

Detection limits of quantitative and digital PCR assays and their influence in presence-absence surveys of environmental DNA.

Margaret E Hunter1, Robert M Dorazio1, John S S Butterfield1, Gaia Meigs-Friend1, Leo G Nico1, Jason A Ferrante1.   

Abstract

A set of universal guidelines is needed to determine the limit of detection (LOD) in PCR-based analyses of low-concentration DNA. In particular, environmental DNA (eDNA) studies require sensitive and reliable methods to detect rare and cryptic species through shed genetic material in environmental samples. Current strategies for assessing detection limits of eDNA are either too stringent or subjective, possibly resulting in biased estimates of species' presence. Here, a conservative LOD analysis grounded in analytical chemistry is proposed to correct for overestimated DNA concentrations predominantly caused by the concentration plateau, a nonlinear relationship between expected and measured DNA concentrations. We have used statistical criteria to establish formal mathematical models for both quantitative and droplet digital PCR. To assess the method, a new Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) TaqMan assay was developed and tested on both PCR platforms using eDNA in water samples. The LOD adjustment reduced Grass Carp occupancy and detection estimates while increasing uncertainty-indicating that caution needs to be applied to eDNA data without LOD correction. Compared to quantitative PCR, digital PCR had higher occurrence estimates due to increased sensitivity and dilution of inhibitors at low concentrations. Without accurate LOD correction, species occurrence and detection probabilities based on eDNA estimates are prone to a source of bias that cannot be reduced by an increase in sample size or PCR replicates. Other applications also could benefit from a standardized LOD such as GMO food analysis and forensic and clinical diagnostics. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Asian carp; DNA-based monitoring; GMO detection; aquatic invasive species; biological invasion; eDNA; false positive; limit of detection; low-concentration DNA analysis; occupancy model; rare mutant detection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27768244     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12619

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  17 in total

1.  Design- and model-based recommendations for detecting and quantifying an amphibian pathogen in environmental samples.

Authors:  Brittany A Mosher; Kathryn P Huyvaert; Tara Chestnut; Jacob L Kerby; Joseph D Madison; Larissa L Bailey
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-11-12       Impact factor: 2.912

2.  Application of droplet digital PCR for the detection of vector copy number in clinical CAR/TCR T cell products.

Authors:  Alex Lu; Hui Liu; Rongye Shi; Yihua Cai; Jinxia Ma; Lipei Shao; Victor Rong; Nikolaos Gkitsas; Hong Lei; Steven L Highfill; Sandhya Panch; David F Stroncek; Ping Jin
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 5.531

3.  Persistence of environmental DNA in marine systems.

Authors:  Rupert A Collins; Owen S Wangensteen; Eoin J O'Gorman; Stefano Mariani; David W Sims; Martin J Genner
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2018-11-05

4.  Accounting for observation processes across multiple levels of uncertainty improves inference of species distributions and guides adaptive sampling of environmental DNA.

Authors:  Amy J Davis; Kelly E Williams; Nathan P Snow; Kim M Pepin; Antoinette J Piaggio
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Environmental DNA sampling reveals high occupancy rates of invasive Burmese pythons at wading bird breeding aggregations in the central Everglades.

Authors:  Sophia C M Orzechowski; Peter C Frederick; Robert M Dorazio; Margaret E Hunter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Improving eDNA yield and inhibitor reduction through increased water volumes and multi-filter isolation techniques.

Authors:  Margaret E Hunter; Jason A Ferrante; Gaia Meigs-Friend; Amelia Ulmer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Beyond Biodiversity: Can Environmental DNA (eDNA) Cut It as a Population Genetics Tool?

Authors:  Clare I M Adams; Michael Knapp; Neil J Gemmell; Gert-Jan Jeunen; Michael Bunce; Miles D Lamare; Helen R Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.096

8.  Combining ddPCR and environmental DNA to improve detection capabilities of a critically endangered freshwater invertebrate.

Authors:  Quentin Mauvisseau; John Davy-Bowker; Mark Bulling; Rein Brys; Sabrina Neyrinck; Christopher Troth; Michael Sweet
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  eDNA sampled from stream networks correlates with camera trap detection rates of terrestrial mammals.

Authors:  Arnaud Lyet; Loïc Pellissier; Alice Valentini; Tony Dejean; Abigail Hehmeyer; Robin Naidoo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Environmental DNA detection tracks established seasonal occurrence of blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) in a semi-enclosed subtropical bay.

Authors:  Bautisse D Postaire; Judith Bakker; Jayne Gardiner; Tonya R Wiley; Demian D Chapman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.