Literature DB >> 31467341

Environmental DNA size sorting and degradation experiment indicates the state of Daphnia magna mitochondrial and nuclear eDNA is subcellular.

Rashnat Moushomi1, Gregory Wilgar1, Gary Carvalho1, Simon Creer1, Mathew Seymour2.   

Abstract

Environmental DNA analysis has emerged as a key component of biodiversity and environmental monitoring. However, the state and fate of eDNA in natural environments is still poorly understood for many ecological systems. Here we assess the state and fate of eDNA derived from the water flea, Daphnia magna, using a full factorial mesocosm experiment. We measured the quantity and degradation of eDNA over a two month period across a range of filters differing in pore size (0, 0.2, 1 and 10 µm), which spans the range of eDNA source material including subcellular, cellular and tissue. We also used two primer sets targeting mitochondrial (COI) and nuclear (18S) genomic regions. Our findings demonstrated that eDNA was most prevalent in the effluent water, but also reliably detected on the 0.2 μm filter, suggesting subcellular material is the predominate state of eDNA. Temporal eDNA quantity dynamics followed an exponential decay function over the course of 6-17 days, demonstrating a predictable decline in eDNA concentration. Nuclear eDNA was more abundant than mitochondrial eDNA, which may be a result of greater primer affinity, or indicate greater availability of nuclear eDNA gene targets in the environment. In contrast to two previous size-sorting experiments, which utilizing fish eDNA, our findings suggest that the state of invertebrate eDNA is much smaller than previously suspected. Overall, our data suggest that the detection of eDNA greatly depends on our knowledge of the state and fate of eDNA, which differ among species, and likely across environmental conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31467341      PMCID: PMC6715800          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48984-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  37 in total

1.  Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing.

Authors:  Donald J Baird; Mehrdad Hajibabaei
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.185

Review 2.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities.

Authors:  Kristy Deiner; Holly M Bik; Elvira Mächler; Mathew Seymour; Anaïs Lacoursière-Roussel; Florian Altermatt; Simon Creer; Iliana Bista; David M Lodge; Natasha de Vere; Michael E Pfrender; Louis Bernatchez
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 6.185

3.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods.

Authors:  Bernd Hänfling; Lori Lawson Handley; Daniel S Read; Christoph Hahn; Jianlong Li; Paul Nichols; Rosetta C Blackman; Anna Oliver; Ian J Winfield
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  Conservation in a cup of water: estimating biodiversity and population abundance from environmental DNA.

Authors:  David M Lodge; Cameron R Turner; Christopher L Jerde; Matthew A Barnes; Lindsay Chadderton; Scott P Egan; Jeffrey L Feder; Andrew R Mahon; Michael E Pfrender
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 6.185

5.  Annual time-series analysis of aqueous eDNA reveals ecologically relevant dynamics of lake ecosystem biodiversity.

Authors:  Iliana Bista; Gary R Carvalho; Kerry Walsh; Mathew Seymour; Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Delphine Lallias; Martin Christmas; Simon Creer
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Application of environmental DNA to detect an endangered marine skate species in the wild.

Authors:  Kay Weltz; Jeremy M Lyle; Jennifer Ovenden; Jessica A T Morgan; David A Moreno; Jayson M Semmens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Rapid progression and future of environmental DNA research.

Authors:  Mathew Seymour
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2019-02-27

8.  Investigating the potential use of environmental DNA (eDNA) for genetic monitoring of marine mammals.

Authors:  Andrew D Foote; Philip Francis Thomsen; Signe Sveegaard; Magnus Wahlberg; Jos Kielgast; Line A Kyhn; Andreas B Salling; Anders Galatius; Ludovic Orlando; M Thomas P Gilbert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river.

Authors:  Kristy Deiner; Florian Altermatt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Real-time multiplex PCR for simultaneous detection of multiple species from environmental DNA: an application on two Japanese medaka species.

Authors:  Satsuki Tsuji; Yuka Iguchi; Naoki Shibata; Iori Teramura; Tadao Kitagawa; Hiroki Yamanaka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  6 in total

1.  Water pre-filtration methods to improve environmental DNA detection by real-time PCR and metabarcoding.

Authors:  Kazuto Takasaki; Hiroki Aihara; Takanobu Imanaka; Takahiro Matsudaira; Keita Tsukahara; Atsuko Usui; Sora Osaki; Hideyuki Doi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Environmental (e)RNA advances the reliability of eDNA by predicting its age.

Authors:  Nathaniel T Marshall; Henry A Vanderploeg; Subba Rao Chaganti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Environmental DNA provides higher resolution assessment of riverine biodiversity and ecosystem function via spatio-temporal nestedness and turnover partitioning.

Authors:  Mathew Seymour; François K Edwards; Bernard J Cosby; Iliana Bista; Peter M Scarlett; Francesca L Brailsford; Helen C Glanville; Mark de Bruyn; Gary R Carvalho; Simon Creer
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-05-03

4.  Quantitative PCR assays to detect whales, rockfish, and common murre environmental DNA in marine water samples of the Northeastern Pacific.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Andruszkiewicz; Kevan M Yamahara; Collin J Closek; Alexandria B Boehm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Systematic review and meta-analysis: Water type and temperature affect environmental DNA decay.

Authors:  Philip D Lamb; Vera G Fonseca; David L Maxwell; Chibuzor C Nnanatu
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2022-05-22       Impact factor: 8.678

Review 6.  Why eDNA fractions need consideration in biomonitoring.

Authors:  Magdalena Nagler; Sabine Marie Podmirseg; Judith Ascher-Jenull; Daniela Sint; Michael Traugott
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2022-06-19       Impact factor: 8.678

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.