Special Issue Article: Environmental DNA Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA

By K. Deiner, J. Walser, E. Mächler, F. Altermatt. 2015

463 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2a587a5cbdea77f48ab9eb9ba7d35bf6c940fef

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish (2020, background): “Several other studies also used long (500‒650 bp) barcodes to successfully detect species from eDNA (Deiner et al., 2015; Egan et al., 2013).”
A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists (2020, methodology): “Each of these sources of variation affects accurate estimation of community composition with DNA metabarcoding (Deiner et al., 2015; Nichols et al., 2018; Piñol et al., 2018; Zinger et al., 2019).”
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).”
Methods for the extraction, storage, amplification and sequencing of DNA from environmental samples (2018, methodology): “2015), coinciding with a rise in the use of Illumina sequencing platforms for DNA analysis; however, the maximum number of studies using the latter system in any year was just seven (Costa et al. 2015; Deiner et al. 2015; Dong et al. 2015; Ficotela et al. 2015; Pansu et al. 2015a; Pochon et al. 2015”
The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics (2016, background): “…and key technical challenges (e) can guide eDNA conservation and research applications With an apparent lack of systematic comparison between eDNA capture methods to date (but see Deiner et al. 2015), trial and error or logistical constraints have dominated the field thus far (Turner et al. 2014a).”
Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter (2017, methodology): “Higher amounts of false negatives from EP field samples may be due to DNA retention in the falcon tubes (Gaillard & Strauss 1998) and/or to the low water volume processed (0 015 L; Deiner et al. 2015; Eichmiller, Miller & Sorensen 2016;Minamoto et al. 2016).”
Environmental DNA monitoring and management of invasive fish: comparison of eDNA and fyke netting (2017, methodology): “The sensitivity of eDNA surveys can also be improved by the use of different filter paper types or extraction methods (Deiner et al. 2015; Liang and Keeley 2013).”
Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity (2015, background): “River Crustacean, mussel Switzerland Present Pilliod et al. (2014) Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a streamdwelling amphibian Streams Amphibian (idaho giant salamander) Idaho, USA Present Tréguier et al. (2014) Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and techni”
Monitoring the near-extinct European weather loach in Denmark based on environmental DNA from water samples (2015, background): “However, this should be done using larger water samples than in the current study to avoid false negatives, as 45 mL of water may not be a suf-ﬁciently large sample to accurately detect a species in ﬂowing water (Deiner et al., 2015).”
Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species (2016, methodology): “2015), but filter material, pore size and DNA extraction method interact to produce final detection rates (Deiner et al. 2015; Renshaw et al. 2015).”
Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding (2016, background): “…in aquatic environments are still in their infancy, with only six studies published to date (Thomsen et al. 2012a,b; Kelly et al. 2014b; Deiner et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2015; Miya et al. 2015), of which only the ones from Thomsen, Deiner and Miya were performed in natural environments.”