ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
Residual eDNA in eRNA Extracts Skews eRNA-Based Biodiversity Assessment: Call for Optimised DNase Treatment.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Residual eDNA in eRNA Extracts Skews eRNA-Based Biodiversity Assessment: Call for Optimised DNase Treatment.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has rapidly emerged as a powerful tool for assessing contemporary biodiversity patterns across diverse ecosystems. However, the potential for false positive detections caused by co-extracted environmental DNA (eDNA) remains unquantified. Distinguishing true signals from false positives caused by residual eDNA is a technical challenge in eRNA-based metabarcoding. To address this issue, we employed a freshwater river receiving treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant as a model system. In such settings, eDNA in the treated effluent can lead to the detection of non-local species (e.g., marine taxa). Treated effluent typically contains minimal or no eRNA, making it well-suited for evaluating the influence of eDNA carryover. By comparing DNase-treated and untreated eRNA samples, we assessed the impact of residual eDNA on fish species richness and community composition. Our results showed that omitting DNase treatment significantly inflated taxonomic richness, with untreated samples detecting a conservative estimate of over 25% more taxa per site. Fold-change analysis revealed that residual eDNA inflated taxon abundances in both high- and low-abundance taxa, with some showing over 10-fold increases. Community composition analyses revealed clear clustering between treated and untreated samples, highlighting substantial shifts driven by residual eDNA. These findings demonstrate that co-extracted eDNA can severely distort eRNA-based biodiversity estimates, leading to false positives and misrepresented contemporary community profiles. We recommend further evaluation of DNase treatment parameters, including enzyme concentration, incubation time and treatment times, and the adoption of optimised protocols to standardise and improve the accuracy of eRNA-based biodiversity monitoring.
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.