The detection of aquatic macroorganisms using environmental DNA analysis—A review of methods for collection, extraction, and detection

By Satsuki Tsuji, T. Takahara, Hideyuki Doi, Naoki Shibata, H. Yamanaka. Environmental DNA, 2019

271 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0245aed553d8fc4b9bd2ec1f51a93045e32fe28d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

The need for robust qPCR‐based eDNA detection assays in environmental monitoring and species inventories (2020, methodology): “Of the many methods used for eDNA detection, including metabarcoding and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the most accessible, cost-effective, and conducive to standards development is targeted quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (abbreviated as qPCR) analysis (Tsuji et al., 2019).”
A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists (2020, methodology): “Special considerations for sampling eDNA The widely used approach for retrieving eDNA from water samples involves filtration, ethanol precipitation, and centrifugation (Tsuji et al., 2019).”
GAPeDNA: Assessing and mapping global species gaps in genetic databases for eDNA metabarcoding (2021, methodology): “Primers were chosen to represent the most used primer pair for each genetic marker in fish eDNA studies (Tsuji et al., 2019)”
The Elephant in the Lab (and Field): Contamination in Aquatic Environmental DNA Studies (2020, background): “Relative to open filters that have a higher contamination risk since they do require handling of the filter membrane both pre- and post-sampling, enclosed filters are more expensive, require more time to process, and the volume of water that can be processed may be limited in sites with turbid water”
Towards the Optimization of eDNA/eRNA Sampling Technologies for Marine Biosecurity Surveillance (2021, background): “Other researchers have also compared a number of commercial kits, with the leading contenders being Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue and the PowerWater kits (see [149] for review).”