Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter

By Johan Spens, Alice Evans, D. Halfmaerten, S. Knudsen, M. E. Sengupta, Sarah S T Mak, E. E. Sigsgaard, M. Hellström. 2017

326 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f4480ce72ffbff306f99a6999b1b55479815487

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. M. Miya
2. L. Lawson Handley
3. P. Møller
4. E. E. Sigsgaard
5. T. Sado
6. Ryo O. Gotoh
7. R. Collins
8. Susan C. Baker

In Molecular Biology

1. T. Sado
2. M. Miya
3. L. Lawson Handley
4. P. Møller
5. E. E. Sigsgaard
6. Ryo O. Gotoh
7. R. Collins
8. Susan C. Baker

Citations in the corpus

• Downstream transport and seasonal variation in freshwater pearl mussel ( Margaritifera margaritifera ) eDNA concentration (2019, methodology): “All filters were extracted using a modified DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen) protocol (Spens et al., 2017).”
• MiFish metabarcoding: a high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples (2020, result): “This finding is consistent with those of subsequent studies comparing the effects of filtration methods on eDNA capture efficiency (Spens et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Capo et al. 2020).”
• Towards the Optimization of eDNA/eRNA Sampling Technologies for Marine Biosecurity Surveillance (2021, methodology): “More commonly, sampling containers and equipment are rigorously sterilized with bleach [83–85] or acid [82,86,87] and rinsed several times with deionized water, followed by site-specific water to remove sterilizing agents.”
• A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists (2020, methodology): “Preserving the filter membrane in ethanol (Spens et al., 2017; Macher et al., 2018; Serrana et al., 2018) or Longmire’s buffer (Longmire et al., 1997; Grey et al., 2018; Lacoursiere-Roussel et al., 2018), is effective.”
• Species-specific detection and quantification of environmental DNA from marine fishes in the Baltic Sea (2019, background): “(2014), and with previous studies that have filtered water with the aim of optimizing the detection of eDNA from aquatic organisms (Deiner et al., 2015; Spens et al., 2017).”
• Non‐specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI (2019, methodology): “This latter methodology involves first isolating and concentrating DNA using filters, rather than homogenizing entire organisms or parts of organisms (Macher et al., 2018; Spens et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2012).”
• Read counts from environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reflect fish abundance and biomass in drained ponds (2020, methodology): “At present, enclosed filters are usually preferred for on-site processing, especially when remote locations are sampled, and storage buffers are used for DNA preservation within the encapsulated filter (Spens et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018; Takahashi et al., 2020).”
• Reference databases, primer choice, and assay sensitivity for environmental metabarcoding: Lessons learnt from a re‐evaluation of an eDNA fish assessment in the Volga headwaters (2020, background): “…a plurality of options exist, and the choice of method can significantly influence detection probabilities (e.g., Deiner, Walser, Maechler, & Altermatt, 2015; Spens et al., 2017), making it increasingly difficult to pick the optimal protocol without preliminary information on the study system.”