Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39465159›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream.

Till-Hendrik Macher, Jens Arle, Arne J Beermann, Lina Frank, Kamil Hupało, Jan Koschorreck, Robin Schütz, Florian Leese

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Till-Hendrik MacherAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jens ArleGerman Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Arne J BeermannAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Lina FrankAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Kamil HupałoAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jan KoschorreckGerman Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Robin SchützAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Florian LeeseAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising approach to assess biodiversity and derive ecological status classes from water samples. However, a limitation of eDNA surveys is that detected DNA molecules may originate from other places or even dead organisms, distorting local biodiversity assessments. Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has recently been proposed as a complementary tool for more localized assessments of the biological community. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding for inferring the richness and species distribution patterns of vertebrates and invertebrates in a Central European lowland river. We collected water samples and analyzed them using a 12S marker for vertebrates and a COI marker for invertebrates. We detected 31 fish, 16 mammal, 10 bird and one lamprey species in the vertebrate dataset. While results were largely consistent, we detected a higher number of species when analysing eRNA (mean = 30.89) than eDNA (mean = 26.16). Also, eRNA detections had a stronger local signature than eDNA detections when compared against species distribution patterns from traditional fish monitoring data. For invertebrates, we detected 109 arthropod, 22 annelid, 12 rotiferan, eight molluscan and four cnidarian species. In contrast to the pattern of vertebrate richness, we detected a higher richness using eDNA (mean = 41.37) compared to eRNA (mean = 22.42). Our findings primarily show that eDNA and eRNA-based detections are comparable for vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Biological replication was important for both template molecules studied. Signal detections for vertebrates were more localized for eRNA compared to eDNA. Overall, the advantages of the extra steps needed for eRNA analyses depend on the study question but both methods provide important data for biodiversity monitoring and research.

Indexed as

BiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, EnvironmentalInvertebratesRiversVertebratesAnimalsEnvironmental MonitoringRNADNA, EnvironmentalRNA12SbiomonitoringBirdsCOIeDNAeRNAFishMacroinvertebratesMammals

Identifiers

PMID39465159
PMCPMC11512801

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.