Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805162›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2019

Species-level biodiversity assessment using marine environmental DNA metabarcoding requires protocol optimization and standardization.

Gert-Jan Jeunen, Michael Knapp, Hamish G Spencer, Helen R Taylor, Miles D Lamare, Michael Stat, Michael Bunce, Neil J Gemmell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Environmental DNA Assay for the Detection of the American Bullfrog (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Strategic considerations for invasive species managers in the utilization of environmental DNA (eDNA): steps for incorporating this powerful surveillance tool.Management of biological invasions : international journal of applied research on biological invasions · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Gert-Jan JeunenDepartment of Anatomy University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7458-3550
Michael KnappDepartment of Anatomy University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.
Hamish G SpencerDepartment of Zoology University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.
Helen R TaylorDepartment of Anatomy University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7951-0772
Miles D LamareDepartment of Marine Science University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.
Michael StatTrace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences Curtin University Perth Western Australia Australia.
Michael BunceTrace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences Curtin University Perth Western Australia Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0302-4206
Neil J GemmellDepartment of Anatomy University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0671-3637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA extraction from environmental samples (environmental DNA; eDNA) for metabarcoding-based biodiversity studies is gaining popularity as a noninvasive, time-efficient, and cost-effective monitoring tool. The potential benefits are promising for marine conservation, as the marine biome is frequently under-surveyed due to its inaccessibility and the consequent high costs involved. With increasing numbers of eDNA-related publications have come a wide array of capture and extraction methods. Without visual species confirmation, inconsistent use of laboratory protocols hinders comparability between studies because the efficiency of target DNA isolation may vary. We determined an optimal protocol (capture and extraction) for marine eDNA research based on total DNA yield measurements by comparing commonly employed methods of seawater filtering and DNA isolation. We compared metabarcoding results of both targeted (small taxonomic group with species-level assignment) and universal (broad taxonomic group with genus/family-level assignment) approaches obtained from replicates treated with the optimal and a low-performance capture and extraction protocol to determine the impact of protocol choice and DNA yield on biodiversity detection. Filtration through cellulose-nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit outperformed other combinations of capture and extraction methods, showing a ninefold improvement in DNA yield over the poorest performing methods. Use of optimized protocols resulted in a significant increase in OTU and species richness for targeted metabarcoding assays. However, changing protocols made little difference to the OTU and taxon richness obtained using universal metabarcoding assays. Our results demonstrate an increased risk of false-negative species detection for targeted eDNA approaches when protocols with poor DNA isolation efficacy are employed. Appropriate optimization is therefore essential for eDNA monitoring to remain a powerful, efficient, and relatively cheap method for biodiversity assessments. For seawater, we advocate filtration through cellulose-nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit or phenol-chloroform-isoamyl for successful implementation of eDNA multi-marker metabarcoding surveys.

Indexed as

biodiversity assessmenteDNAextractionfiltrationmetabarcoding

Identifiers

PMID30805162
PMCPMC6374651

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.