Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35751617›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2022

Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges.

Wang Cai, Lynsey R Harper, Erika F Neave, Peter Shum, Jamie Craggs, María Belén Arias, Ana Riesgo, Stefano Mariani

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Wang CaiSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8132-5821
Lynsey R HarperSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0923-1801
Erika F NeaveSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0410-0338
Peter ShumSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8154-9828
Jamie CraggsHorniman Museum and Gardens, London, UK.
María Belén AriasDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5538-5177
Ana RiesgoDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7993-1523
Stefano MarianiSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5329-0553
Liverpool John Moores University · GBNatural History Museum · GBHorniman Museum and Gardens · GBNovametrics (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

CSIC intramural grant 202030E006Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation grant RYC2018-024247-IUK Natural Environment Research Council NE/T007028/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large and hyperdiverse marine ecosystems pose significant challenges to biodiversity monitoring. While environmental DNA (eDNA) promises to meet many of these challenges, recent studies suggested that sponges, as "natural samplers" of eDNA, could further streamline the workflow for detecting marine vertebrates. However, beyond pilot studies demonstrating the ability of sponges to capture eDNA, little is known about the dynamics of eDNA particles in sponge tissue, and the effectiveness of the latter compared to water samples. Here, we present the results of a controlled aquarium experiment to examine the persistence and detectability of eDNA captured by three encrusting sponge species and compare the sponge's eDNA capturing ability with established water filtration techniques. Our results indicate that sponges and water samples have highly similar detectability for fish of different sizes and abundances, but different sponge species exhibit considerable variance in performance. Interestingly, one sponge appeared to mirror the eDNA degradation profile of water samples, while another sponge retained eDNA throughout the experiment. A third sponge yielded virtually no DNA sequences at all. Overall, our study suggests that some sponges will be suitable as natural samplers, while others will introduce significant problems for laboratory processing. We suggest that an initial optimization phase will be required in any future studies aiming to employ sponges for biodiversity assessment. With time, factoring in technical and natural accessibility, it is expected that specific sponge taxa may become the "chosen" natural samplers in certain habitats and regions.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalAnimalsBiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringFishesWaterDNA, EnvironmentalWatereDNAfish biodiversitymetabarcodingnatural samplernsDNAporifera

Identifiers

PMID35751617
PMCPMC9796769
OpenAlexW4283453488

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.