环境 DNA 储存和提取方法会影响多种水生入侵物种的可检测性

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Environmental DNA Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1002/edn3.557
Samantha M. García, Chan Lan Chun, Josh Dumke, Gretchen J. A. Hansen, Kathleen B. Quebedeaux, Christopher Rounds, Anna Totsch, Eric R. Larson
{"title":"环境 DNA 储存和提取方法会影响多种水生入侵物种的可检测性","authors":"Samantha M. García,&nbsp;Chan Lan Chun,&nbsp;Josh Dumke,&nbsp;Gretchen J. A. Hansen,&nbsp;Kathleen B. Quebedeaux,&nbsp;Christopher Rounds,&nbsp;Anna Totsch,&nbsp;Eric R. Larson","doi":"10.1002/edn3.557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to genetic material released by organisms into their surrounding environment. Collecting and identifying eDNA has gained popularity for monitoring and surveillance of aquatic invasive species. Invasive species management is most successful when an invasion is identified early while population size is likely to be low, highlighting the importance of eDNA detection sensitivity. Various factors influence DNA yield recovered from environmental samples. Environmental DNA storage and extraction methods, for example, can be adjusted to maximize DNA yield, thereby improving detectability. In this study, we compared the performance of two eDNA storage and extraction methods in detecting three common aquatic invasive species (<i>Bythotrephes longimanus</i>, <i>Dreissena polymorpha</i>, and <i>Faxonius rusticus</i>) across five natural ecosystems of Minnesota, United States. One method involved storing filters in 95% ethanol (EtOH) and extracting DNA using a DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), whereas the other method used cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) for storage and a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl (PCI) procedure for DNA extraction. We also investigated the effect of DNA extract volume (1 μL relative to 3 μL) in qPCR reactions on eDNA detections for the commercial kit method. The CTAB-PCI method yielded significantly more positive detections, across all three species, compared to the EtOH-Qiagen method. Moreover, we found that using 1 μL of DNA extract in qPCR reactions was equally effective as using 3 μL. To improve detections of aquatic invasive species, we recommend that researchers store eDNA sample filters in CTAB or a similar lysis buffer such as Longmire's solution and extract with PCI when feasible, but note that lower extract volumes might be used without negative effect when either increasing technical replicates or repurposing samples for the detection of multiple species.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.557","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental DNA storage and extraction method affects detectability for multiple aquatic invasive species\",\"authors\":\"Samantha M. García,&nbsp;Chan Lan Chun,&nbsp;Josh Dumke,&nbsp;Gretchen J. A. Hansen,&nbsp;Kathleen B. Quebedeaux,&nbsp;Christopher Rounds,&nbsp;Anna Totsch,&nbsp;Eric R. Larson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to genetic material released by organisms into their surrounding environment. Collecting and identifying eDNA has gained popularity for monitoring and surveillance of aquatic invasive species. Invasive species management is most successful when an invasion is identified early while population size is likely to be low, highlighting the importance of eDNA detection sensitivity. Various factors influence DNA yield recovered from environmental samples. Environmental DNA storage and extraction methods, for example, can be adjusted to maximize DNA yield, thereby improving detectability. In this study, we compared the performance of two eDNA storage and extraction methods in detecting three common aquatic invasive species (<i>Bythotrephes longimanus</i>, <i>Dreissena polymorpha</i>, and <i>Faxonius rusticus</i>) across five natural ecosystems of Minnesota, United States. One method involved storing filters in 95% ethanol (EtOH) and extracting DNA using a DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), whereas the other method used cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) for storage and a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl (PCI) procedure for DNA extraction. We also investigated the effect of DNA extract volume (1 μL relative to 3 μL) in qPCR reactions on eDNA detections for the commercial kit method. The CTAB-PCI method yielded significantly more positive detections, across all three species, compared to the EtOH-Qiagen method. Moreover, we found that using 1 μL of DNA extract in qPCR reactions was equally effective as using 3 μL. To improve detections of aquatic invasive species, we recommend that researchers store eDNA sample filters in CTAB or a similar lysis buffer such as Longmire's solution and extract with PCI when feasible, but note that lower extract volumes might be used without negative effect when either increasing technical replicates or repurposing samples for the detection of multiple species.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.557\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.557\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境 DNA(eDNA)是指生物体释放到周围环境中的遗传物质。收集和鉴定 eDNA 在监测和监视水生入侵物种方面越来越受欢迎。入侵物种管理最成功的方法是在种群数量可能较低时及早发现,这就凸显了 eDNA 检测灵敏度的重要性。影响从环境样本中回收 DNA 产量的因素有很多。例如,环境 DNA 的储存和提取方法可以通过调整使 DNA 产量最大化,从而提高检测灵敏度。在这项研究中,我们比较了两种 eDNA 储存和提取方法在检测美国明尼苏达州五个自然生态系统中三种常见水生入侵物种(Bythotrephes longimanus、Dreissena polymorpha 和 Faxonius rusticus)方面的性能。一种方法是将过滤器储存在 95% 的乙醇(EtOH)中,然后使用 DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit(Qiagen,德国希尔登)提取 DNA,而另一种方法是使用十六烷基三甲基溴化铵(CTAB)进行储存,并使用苯酚-氯仿-异戊基(PCI)程序提取 DNA。我们还研究了 qPCR 反应中 DNA 提取液体积(1 μL 相对于 3 μL)对商用试剂盒方法检测 eDNA 的影响。与 EtOH-Qiagen 方法相比,CTAB-PCI 方法在所有三个物种中的阳性检测率都要高得多。此外,我们还发现,在 qPCR 反应中使用 1 μL DNA 提取液与使用 3 μL 的效果相同。为了提高水生入侵物种的检测效果,我们建议研究人员将 eDNA 样品过滤器储存在 CTAB 或类似的裂解缓冲液(如 Longmire's 溶液)中,并在可行的情况下使用 PCI 进行提取,但要注意的是,在增加技术重复次数或重新利用样品检测多个物种时,使用较低的提取量也不会产生负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Environmental DNA storage and extraction method affects detectability for multiple aquatic invasive species

Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to genetic material released by organisms into their surrounding environment. Collecting and identifying eDNA has gained popularity for monitoring and surveillance of aquatic invasive species. Invasive species management is most successful when an invasion is identified early while population size is likely to be low, highlighting the importance of eDNA detection sensitivity. Various factors influence DNA yield recovered from environmental samples. Environmental DNA storage and extraction methods, for example, can be adjusted to maximize DNA yield, thereby improving detectability. In this study, we compared the performance of two eDNA storage and extraction methods in detecting three common aquatic invasive species (Bythotrephes longimanus, Dreissena polymorpha, and Faxonius rusticus) across five natural ecosystems of Minnesota, United States. One method involved storing filters in 95% ethanol (EtOH) and extracting DNA using a DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), whereas the other method used cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) for storage and a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl (PCI) procedure for DNA extraction. We also investigated the effect of DNA extract volume (1 μL relative to 3 μL) in qPCR reactions on eDNA detections for the commercial kit method. The CTAB-PCI method yielded significantly more positive detections, across all three species, compared to the EtOH-Qiagen method. Moreover, we found that using 1 μL of DNA extract in qPCR reactions was equally effective as using 3 μL. To improve detections of aquatic invasive species, we recommend that researchers store eDNA sample filters in CTAB or a similar lysis buffer such as Longmire's solution and extract with PCI when feasible, but note that lower extract volumes might be used without negative effect when either increasing technical replicates or repurposing samples for the detection of multiple species.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Bottom Trawling and Multi-Marker eDNA Metabarcoding Surveys Reveal Highly Diverse Vertebrate and Crustacean Communities: A Case Study in an Urbanized Subtropical Estuary Evaluation of a Nanopore Sequencing Strategy on Bacterial Communities From Marine Sediments Current Trends in Biophysical Modeling of eDNA Dynamics for the Detection of Marine Species Validation of Environmental DNA for Estimating Proportional and Absolute Biomass
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1