ArticlePloS one2021
The update and optimization of an eDNA assay to detect the invasive rusty crayfish (Faxonius rusticus).
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Advances in environmental DNA monitoring: standardization, automation, and emerging technologies in aquatic ecosystems.Science China. Life sciences · 2024Review
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
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is nuclear or mitochondrial DNA shed into the environment, and amplifying this DNA can serve as a reliable, noninvasive way to monitor aquatic systems for the presence of an invasive species. Assays based on the collection of eDNA are becoming increasingly popular, and, when optimized, can aid in effectively and efficiently tracking invasion fronts. We set out to update an eDNA assay to detect the invasive rusty crayfish, Faxonius rusticus. We tested for species specificity compared to other stream crayfish and field tested the assay at sites with known presence (N = 3) and absence (N = 4) in the Juniata River watershed in central Pennsylvania, USA. To maximize sensitivity, we field tested different storage buffers (Longmire's buffer and ethanol), DNA extraction methods (Qiagen's DNEasy and PowerWater kits), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) chemistries (TaqMan and SYBR green). Our assay confirmed the presence data and performed optimally when filter samples were stored in Longmire's buffer, DNA was extracted with DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit, and TaqMan qPCR chemistry was utilized. With proper sample processing, our assay allows for accurate, noninvasive detection of F. rusticus in streams.
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.