Moving environmental DNA (eDNA) technologies from benchtop to the field using passive sampling and PDQeX extraction

被引:15
|
作者
Jeunen, Gert-Jan [1 ]
von Ammon, Ulla [2 ]
Cross, Hugh [1 ,3 ]
Ferreira, Sara [1 ]
Lamare, Miles [4 ]
Day, Robert [5 ]
Treece, Jackson [1 ]
Pochon, Xavier [2 ,6 ]
Zaiko, Anastasija [2 ,6 ]
Gemmell, Neil J. [1 ]
Stanton, Jo-Ann L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Sch Biomed Sci, Dept Anat, Dunedin, New Zealand
[2] Cawthron Inst, Nelson, New Zealand
[3] Natl Ecol Observ Network, Boulder, CO USA
[4] Univ Otago, Dept Marine Sci, Dunedin, New Zealand
[5] Univ Otago, Dept Biochem, Dunedin, New Zealand
[6] Univ Auckland, Inst Marine Sci, Auckland, New Zealand
来源
ENVIRONMENTAL DNA | 2022年 / 4卷 / 06期
关键词
16S rRNA; active filtration; eDNA; fish diversity; mesocosm; metabarcoding; passive samplers; PDQeX; protocol optimization; BIODIVERSITY;
D O I
10.1002/edn3.356
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has shown great promise as an effective, non-invasive monitoring method for marine biomes. However, long filtration times and the need for state-of-the-art laboratories are restricting sample replication and in situ species detections. Methodological innovations, such as passive filtration and self-contained DNA extraction protocols, have the potential to alleviate these issues. We explored the implementation of passive sampling and a self-contained DNA extraction protocol by comparing fish diversity obtained from active filtration (1 L; 0.45 mu m cellulose nitrate [CN] filters) to five passive substrates, including 0.45 mu m CN filters, 5 mu m nylon filters, 0.45 mu m positively charged nylon filters, artificial sponges, and fishing net. Fish diversity was then compared between the PDQeX Nucleic Acid Extractor and the conventional Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue protocol. Experiments were conducted in both a controlled mesocosm and in situ at the Portobello Marine Laboratory, New Zealand. No significant differences in fish diversity were observed among active filtration and more porous passive materials (artificial sponges and fishing net) for both the mesocosm and harbor waters. For the in situ comparison, all passive filter membranes detected a significantly lower number of fish species, resulting from partial sample drop-out. While no significant differences in fish eDNA signal diversity were observed between either DNA extraction methods in the mesocosm, the PDQeX system was less effective at detecting fish for the in situ comparison. Our results demonstrate that a passive sampling approach using porous substrates can be effectively implemented to capture eDNA from seawater, eliminating vacuum filtration processing. The large variation in efficiency observed among the five substrate types, however, warrants further optimization of the passive sampling approach for routine eDNA applications. The PDQeX system can extract high-abundance DNA in a mesocosm with further optimization to detect low-abundance eDNA from the marine environment.
引用
收藏
页码:1420 / 1433
页数:14
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Rapid extraction of DNA suitable for NGS workflows from bacterial cultures using the PDQeX
    Stanton, Jo-Ann L.
    Muralidhar, Abishek
    Rand, Christy J.
    Saul, David J.
    BIOTECHNIQUES, 2019, 66 (05) : 208 - 213
  • [2] River benthic macroinvertebrates and environmental DNA metabarcoding: a scoping review of eDNA sampling, extraction, amplification and sequencing methods
    Aikaterini Vourka
    Ioannis Karaouzas
    Aristeidis Parmakelis
    Biodiversity and Conservation, 2023, 32 : 4221 - 4238
  • [3] Detection of Trispot Darter (Percidae: Etheostoma trisella) Using Empirical Sampling and Environmental DNA (eDNA)
    Johnston, Carol E.
    Janosik, Alexis M.
    SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST, 2019, 18 (04) : 555 - 560
  • [4] River benthic macroinvertebrates and environmental DNA metabarcoding: a scoping review of eDNA sampling, extraction, amplification and sequencing methods
    Vourka, Aikaterini
    Karaouzas, Ioannis
    Parmakelis, Aristeidis
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2023, 32 (13) : 4221 - 4238
  • [5] Detection of Invasive Mosquito Vectors Using Environmental DNA (eDNA) from Water Samples
    Schneider, Judith
    Valentini, Alice
    Dejean, Tony
    Montarsi, Fabrizio
    Taberlet, Pierre
    Glaizot, Olivier
    Fumagalli, Luca
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (09):
  • [6] Passive sampling of environmental DNA in aquatic environments using 3D-printed hydroxyapatite samplers
    Verdier, Heloise
    Konecny-Dupre, Lara
    Marquette, Christophe
    Reveron, Helen
    Tadier, Solene
    Gremillard, Laurent
    Barthes, Amelie
    Datry, Thibault
    Bouchez, Agnes
    Lefebure, Tristan
    MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES, 2022, 22 (06) : 2158 - 2170
  • [7] Improved biodiversity detection using a large-volume environmental DNA sampler with in situ filtration and implications for marine eDNA sampling strategies
    Govindarajan, Annette F.
    McCartin, Luke
    Adams, Allan
    Allan, Elizabeth
    Belani, Abhimanyu
    Francolini, Rene
    Fujii, Justin
    Gomez-Ibanez, Daniel
    Kukulya, Amy
    Marin, Fredrick
    Tradd, Kaitlyn
    Yoerger, Dana R.
    McDermott, Jill M.
    Herrera, Santiago
    DEEP-SEA RESEARCH PART I-OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH PAPERS, 2022, 189
  • [8] Adaptive spatial sampling design for environmental field prediction using low-cost sensing technologies
    Yoo, Eun-Hye
    Zammit-Mangion, Andrew
    Chipeta, Michael G.
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 221
  • [9] Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter
    Wong, Marty Kwok-Shing
    Nakao, Mako
    Hyodo, Susumu
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [10] Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter
    Marty Kwok-Shing Wong
    Mako Nakao
    Susumu Hyodo
    Scientific Reports, 10