Literature DB >> 29766663

The effect of filtration method on the efficiency of environmental DNA capture and quantification via metabarcoding.

Jianlong Li1, Lori-Jayne Lawson Handley1, Daniel S Read2, Bernd Hänfling1.   

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a promising tool for rapid and noninvasive biodiversity monitoring. eDNA density is low in environmental samples, and a capture method, such as filtration, is often required to concentrate eDNA for downstream analyses. In this study, six treatments, with differing filter types and pore sizes for eDNA capture, were compared for their efficiency and accuracy to assess fish community structure with known fish abundance and biomass via eDNA metabarcoding. Our results showed that different filters (with the exception of 20-μm large-pore filters) were broadly consistent in their DNA capture ability. The 0.45-μm filters performed the best in terms of total DNA yield, probability of species detection, repeatability within pond and consistency between ponds. However performance of 0.45-μm filters was only marginally better than for 0.8-μm filters, while filtration time was significantly longer. Given this trade-off, the 0.8-μm filter is the optimal pore size of membrane filter for turbid, eutrophic and high fish density ponds analysed here. The 0.45-μm Sterivex enclosed filters performed reasonably well and are suitable in situations where on-site filtration is required. Finally, prefilters are applied only if absolutely essential for reducing the filtration time or increasing the throughput volume of the capture filters. In summary, we found encouraging similarity in the results obtained from different filtration methods, but the optimal pore size of filter or filter type might strongly depend on the water type under study.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  eDNA method development; fish monitoring; lentic systems; prefiltration

Year:  2018        PMID: 29766663     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12899

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


  8 in total

1.  Got Glycogen?: Development and Multispecies Validation of the Novel Preserve, Precipitate, Lyse, Precipitate, Purify (PPLPP) Workflow for Environmental DNA Extraction from Longmire's Preserved Water Samples.

Authors:  Richard C Edmunds; Damien Burrows
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2020-12

2.  Comparing the efficiency of open and enclosed filtration systems in environmental DNA quantification for fish and jellyfish.

Authors:  Sayaka Takahashi; Masayuki K Sakata; Toshifumi Minamoto; Reiji Masuda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Droplet digital PCR assays for the quantification of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) from environmental DNA collected in the water of mountain lakes.

Authors:  Eric Capo; Göran Spong; Sven Norman; Helena Königsson; Pia Bartels; Pär Byström
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter.

Authors:  Marty Kwok-Shing Wong; Mako Nakao; Susumu Hyodo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.

Authors:  Julija Fediajevaite; Victoria Priestley; Richard Arnold; Vincent Savolainen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Effectiveness assessment of using riverine water eDNA to simultaneously monitor the riverine and riparian biodiversity information.

Authors:  Haile Yang; Hao Du; Hongfang Qi; Luxian Yu; Xindong Hou; Hui Zhang; Junyi Li; Jinming Wu; Chengyou Wang; Qiong Zhou; Qiwei Wei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Quantifying the Colonization of Environmental Microbes in the Fish Gut: A Case Study of Wild Fish Populations in the Yangtze River.

Authors:  Haile Yang; Jinming Wu; Hao Du; Hui Zhang; Junyi Li; Qiwei Wei
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 5.640

8.  Environmental DNA detection of giant snakehead in Thailand's major rivers for wild stock assessment.

Authors:  Maslin Osathanunkul; Panagiotis Madesis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.