Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880026›Full record

ArticleOecologia2020

Evaluating environmental DNA as a tool for detecting an amphibian pathogen using an optimized extraction method.

Laura A Brannelly, Daniel P Wetzel, Michel E B Ohmer, Lydia Zimmerman, Veronica Saenz, Corinne L Richards-Zawacki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Environmental distribution and seasonal dynamics ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Dual Detection of the Chytrid FungiJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Laura A BrannellyDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. laura.brannelly@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2975-9494
Daniel P WetzelDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Michel E B OhmerDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lydia ZimmermanDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Veronica SaenzDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Corinne L Richards-ZawackiDepartment of Biological Science, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

U.S. Department of Defense RC-2638US NSF 1649443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection is a valuable conservation tool that can be used to identify and monitor imperiled or invasive species and wildlife pathogens. Batrachochytrium pathogens are of global conservation concern because they are a leading cause of amphibian decline. While eDNA techniques have been used to detect Batrachochytrium DNA in the environment, a systematic comparison of extraction methods across environmental samples is lacking. In this study, we first compared eDNA extraction methods and found that a soil extraction kit (Qiagen PowerSoil) was the most effective for detecting Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in water samples. The PowerSoil extraction had a minimum detection level of 100 zoospores and had a two- to four-fold higher detection probability than other commonly used extraction methods (e.g., QIAamp extraction, DNeasy+Qiashredder extraction method, respectively). Next, we used this extraction method on field-collected water and sediment samples and were able to detect pathogen DNA in both. While field-collected water filters were equivalent to amphibian skin swab samples in detecting the presence of pathogen DNA, the seasonal patterns in pathogen quantity were different between skin swabs and water samples. Detection rate was lowest in sediment samples. We also found that detection probability increases with the volume of water filtered. Our results indicate that water filter eDNA samples can be accurate in detecting pathogen presence at the habitat scale but their utility for quantifying pathogen loads in the environment appears limited. We suggest that eDNA techniques be used for early warning detection to guide animal sampling efforts.

Indexed as

ChytridiomycotaDNA, EnvironmentalAmphibiansAnimalsDNAEcosystemDNADNA, EnvironmentalAmphibianChytridiomycosisEDNAEnvironmental detectionExtraction

Identifiers

PMID32880026
OpenAlexW3081646249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.