ArticlePloS one2020
Comparing the efficiency of open and enclosed filtration systems in environmental DNA quantification for fish and jellyfish.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- QuickConc Vacuum: A high-sensitive cationic-assisted method for large-volume eDNA concentration and sensitive biodiversity monitoring.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Article
- A comparison of microbial community composition in two alpine springs in southern Nevada.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- QuickConc: A Rapid, Efficient, and Power-Free eDNA Concentration Method With Cationic-Assisted Capture.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Biodiversity and distribution patterns of blooming jellyfish in the Bohai Sea revealed by eDNA metabarcoding.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Application of environmental DNA metabarcoding and quantitative PCR to detect blooming jellyfish in a temperate bay of northern China.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Ultra-sensitive detection of ecologically rare fish from eDNA samples based on the RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a technology.iScience · 2023Article
- Temperature sensitivity of the interspecific interaction strength of coastal marine fish communities.eLife · 2023Article
- Improvement of recovery yield of macro-organismal environmental DNA from seawater samples.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2023Article
- Environmental DNA Assay for the Detection of the American Bullfrog (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Can nuclear aquatic environmental DNA be a genetic marker for the accurate estimation of species abundance?Die Naturwissenschaften · 2022Article
- Capturing marine microbiomes and environmental DNA: A field sampling guide.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Environmental DNA preserved in marine sediment for detecting jellyfish blooms after a tsunami.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- At Palmyra Atoll, the fish-community environmental DNA signal changes across habitats but not with tides.Journal of fish biology · 2021Article
- Intraspecific genetic variability and diurnal activity affect environmental DNA detection in Japanese eel.PloS one · 2021Article
- Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Water sampling and filtration of environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis have been performed by several different methods, and each method may yield a different species composition or eDNA concentration. Here, we investigated the eDNA of seawater samples directly collected by SCUBA to compare two widely used filtration methods: open filtration with a glass filter (GF/F) and enclosed filtration (Sterivex). We referred to biomass based on visual observation data collected simultaneously to clarify the difference between organism groups. Water samples were collected at two points in the Sea of Japan in May, September and December 2018. The respective samples were filtered through GF/F and Sterivex for eDNA extraction. We quantified the eDNA concentration of five fish and two cnidarian species by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) using species-specific primers/probe sets. A strong correlation of eDNA concentration was obtained between GF/F and Sterivex; the intercepts and slopes of the linear regression lines were slightly different in fish and jellyfish. The amount of eDNA detected using the GF/F filtration method was higher than that detected using Sterivex when the eDNA concentration was high; the opposite trend was observed when the eDNA concentration was relatively low. The concentration of eDNA correlated with visually estimated biomass; eDNA concentration per biomass in jellyfish was approximately 700 times greater than that in fish. We conclude that GF/F provides an advantage in collecting a large amount of eDNA, whereas Sterivex offers superior eDNA sensitivity. Both filtration methods are effective in estimating the spatiotemporal biomass size of target marine species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.