Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35084125›Full record

ArticleZoological research2022

Effects of sampling strategies and DNA extraction methods on eDNA metabarcoding: A case study of estuarine fish diversity monitoring.

Hui-Ting Ruan, Rui-Li Wang, Hong-Ting Li, Li Liu, Tian-Xu Kuang, Min Li, Ke-Shu Zou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zoological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Hui-Ting RuanUniversity Joint Laboratory of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao Region on Marine Bioresource Conservation and Exploitation, College of Marine Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, China.
Rui-Li WangUniversity Joint Laboratory of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao Region on Marine Bioresource Conservation and Exploitation, College of Marine Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, China.
Hong-Ting LiKey Laboratory for Sustainable Utilization of Open-sea Fishery, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510300, China.
Li LiuUniversity Joint Laboratory of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao Region on Marine Bioresource Conservation and Exploitation, College of Marine Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, China.
Tian-Xu KuangUniversity Joint Laboratory of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao Region on Marine Bioresource Conservation and Exploitation, College of Marine Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, China.
Min LiKey Laboratory for Sustainable Utilization of Open-sea Fishery, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510300, China.
Ke-Shu ZouUniversity Joint Laboratory of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao Region on Marine Bioresource Conservation and Exploitation, College of Marine Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510642, China. E-mail:zoukeshu@scau.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) integrated with metabarcoding is a promising and powerful tool for species composition and biodiversity assessment in aquatic ecosystems and is increasingly applied to evaluate fish diversity. To date, however, no standardized eDNA-based protocol has been established to monitor fish diversity. In this study, we investigated and compared two filtration methods and three DNA extraction methods using three filtration water volumes to determine a suitable approach for eDNA-based fish diversity monitoring in the Pearl River Estuary (PRE), a highly anthropogenically disturbed estuarine ecosystem. Compared to filtration-based precipitation, direct filtration was a more suitable method for eDNA metabarcoding in the PRE. The combined use of DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (BT) and traditional phenol/chloroform (PC) extraction produced higher DNA yields, amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), and Shannon diversity indices, and generated more homogeneous and consistent community composition among replicates. Compared to the other combined protocols, the PC and BT methods obtained better species detection, higher fish diversity, and greater consistency for the filtration water volumes of 1 000 and 2 000 mL, respectively. All eDNA metabarcoding protocols were more sensitive than bottom trawling in the PRE fish surveys and combining two techniques yielded greater taxonomic diversity. Furthermore, combining traditional methods with eDNA analysis enhanced accuracy. These results indicate that methodological decisions related to eDNA metabarcoding should be made with caution for fish community monitoring in estuarine ecosystems.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalFishesAnimalsEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringWaterDNA, EnvironmentalWaterDNA extractioneDNA metabarcodingEstuarine ecosystemFish diversitySampling strategies

Identifiers

PMID35084125
PMCPMC8920846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.