Screening marker sensitivity: Optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection
Aim Environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based techniques are useful tools in disciplines such as conservation biogeography at local to global scales since they provide promising methods to locate organisms at low abundance. Here, we raise a largely overlooked issue that the marker (primer pairs and/or probes)...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diversity & distributions 2021-10, Vol.27 (10), p.1981-1988 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1988 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1981 |
container_title | Diversity & distributions |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Xia, Zhiqiang Zhan, Aibin Johansson, Mattias L. DeRoy, Emma Haffner, Gordon Douglas MacIsaac, Hugh J. |
description | Aim
Environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based techniques are useful tools in disciplines such as conservation biogeography at local to global scales since they provide promising methods to locate organisms at low abundance. Here, we raise a largely overlooked issue that the marker (primer pairs and/or probes) sensitivity of eDNA‐based detection should be optimized and reported to improve detection performance and result interpretation.
Location
Global.
Methods
We analysed 250 articles published between 2008 and 2019 that sought to detect animals from environmental water samples using species‐specific markers to identify effort required.
Results
Most (66.0%) studies used newly designed markers, and real‐time quantitative PCR dominated the studies (72.4% of articles). The use of quantitative PCR increased significantly over time (p = .016), while conventional PCR decreased significantly (p = .005). In 82.4% of studies using newly designed markers, researchers did not screen their chosen markers for sensitivity, and 46.7% of these studies did not report the limit of detection (LoD). Limited knowledge of sensitivity screening and LoD was also found among aquatic species on the list of the world's worst alien invasive species, and many studies used published markers without such knowledge, potentially propagating errors.
Main conclusions
The rapidly growing use of eDNA‐based detection of low‐abundance species requires well‐designed protocols to improve sensitivity. Knowledge of the limits of eDNA technology is imperative, particularly when applied to conservation biogeography studies for detecting non‐indigenous or endangered species. Our results highlight the currently inadequate sensitivity screening of genetic markers used in most studies, contrasting the transition to highly sensitive PCR methods. Along with ongoing calls for standardization in the eDNA methods, we add that newly designed markers be screened to determine and optimize sensitivity before use to reduce the uncertainty of detection and benefit future applications within or beyond areas of their development. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ddi.13262 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_JFNAL</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2577209655</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A710751555</galeid><jstor_id>48621934</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A710751555</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3862-8583ec8406fbb65746fb01011208f4a797ef4e56bab55953a71698898e9d4a7e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtLAzEQh4MoWKsH7woFTx62zftxLK0vKHhQz2E3O1tS292abJX-98auDwTNHCZMvm8CP4ROCR6SdEZl6YeEUUn3UI9wRTMuOd1PdyZlZgSRh-goxgXGmDFBe-jswQWA2tfzwSoPzxAGEeroW__q2-0xOqjyZYSTz95HT9dXj5PbbHZ_czcZzzLHtKSZFpqB0xzLqiikUDx1TDAhFOuK58ooqDgIWeSFEEawXBFptDYaTJmegfXRRbd3HZqXDcTWLppNqNOXlgqlKDZSiB9qni_B-rpq2pC7lY_OjhXBShCxo4Z_UKlKWHnX1FD5NP8lXHaCC02MASq7Dj5lsbUE249MbcrU7jJN7Khj39KS7f-gnU7vvozzzljEtgnfBk-5EcM4ewcAt30q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2577209655</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Screening marker sensitivity: Optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection</title><source>Jstor Journals Open Access</source><creator>Xia, Zhiqiang ; Zhan, Aibin ; Johansson, Mattias L. ; DeRoy, Emma ; Haffner, Gordon Douglas ; MacIsaac, Hugh J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Xia, Zhiqiang ; Zhan, Aibin ; Johansson, Mattias L. ; DeRoy, Emma ; Haffner, Gordon Douglas ; MacIsaac, Hugh J.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
Environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based techniques are useful tools in disciplines such as conservation biogeography at local to global scales since they provide promising methods to locate organisms at low abundance. Here, we raise a largely overlooked issue that the marker (primer pairs and/or probes) sensitivity of eDNA‐based detection should be optimized and reported to improve detection performance and result interpretation.
Location
Global.
Methods
We analysed 250 articles published between 2008 and 2019 that sought to detect animals from environmental water samples using species‐specific markers to identify effort required.
Results
Most (66.0%) studies used newly designed markers, and real‐time quantitative PCR dominated the studies (72.4% of articles). The use of quantitative PCR increased significantly over time (p = .016), while conventional PCR decreased significantly (p = .005). In 82.4% of studies using newly designed markers, researchers did not screen their chosen markers for sensitivity, and 46.7% of these studies did not report the limit of detection (LoD). Limited knowledge of sensitivity screening and LoD was also found among aquatic species on the list of the world's worst alien invasive species, and many studies used published markers without such knowledge, potentially propagating errors.
Main conclusions
The rapidly growing use of eDNA‐based detection of low‐abundance species requires well‐designed protocols to improve sensitivity. Knowledge of the limits of eDNA technology is imperative, particularly when applied to conservation biogeography studies for detecting non‐indigenous or endangered species. Our results highlight the currently inadequate sensitivity screening of genetic markers used in most studies, contrasting the transition to highly sensitive PCR methods. Along with ongoing calls for standardization in the eDNA methods, we add that newly designed markers be screened to determine and optimize sensitivity before use to reduce the uncertainty of detection and benefit future applications within or beyond areas of their development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13262</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley</publisher><subject>Abundance ; aquatic ecosystems ; BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH ; Biogeography ; Conservation ; Datasets ; DNA probes ; Endangered & extinct species ; Endangered species ; Environmental DNA ; false negatives ; Genetic markers ; Genetic screening ; Indigenous species ; Introduced species ; Invasive species ; limit of detection ; marker screening ; Markers ; Methods ; Nonnative species ; Optimization ; PCR method ; Polymerase chain reaction ; Protection and preservation ; Rare species ; Screening ; Sensitivity ; Standardization ; Time series ; Water analysis ; Water sampling ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Diversity & distributions, 2021-10, Vol.27 (10), p.1981-1988</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3862-8583ec8406fbb65746fb01011208f4a797ef4e56bab55953a71698898e9d4a7e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3862-8583ec8406fbb65746fb01011208f4a797ef4e56bab55953a71698898e9d4a7e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1416-1238 ; 0000-0002-9201-1043</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48621934$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48621934$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,25332,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,54499,54505</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48621934$$EView_record_in_JSTOR$$FView_record_in_$$GJSTOR</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xia, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhan, Aibin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansson, Mattias L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeRoy, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haffner, Gordon Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacIsaac, Hugh J.</creatorcontrib><title>Screening marker sensitivity: Optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection</title><title>Diversity & distributions</title><description>Aim
Environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based techniques are useful tools in disciplines such as conservation biogeography at local to global scales since they provide promising methods to locate organisms at low abundance. Here, we raise a largely overlooked issue that the marker (primer pairs and/or probes) sensitivity of eDNA‐based detection should be optimized and reported to improve detection performance and result interpretation.
Location
Global.
Methods
We analysed 250 articles published between 2008 and 2019 that sought to detect animals from environmental water samples using species‐specific markers to identify effort required.
Results
Most (66.0%) studies used newly designed markers, and real‐time quantitative PCR dominated the studies (72.4% of articles). The use of quantitative PCR increased significantly over time (p = .016), while conventional PCR decreased significantly (p = .005). In 82.4% of studies using newly designed markers, researchers did not screen their chosen markers for sensitivity, and 46.7% of these studies did not report the limit of detection (LoD). Limited knowledge of sensitivity screening and LoD was also found among aquatic species on the list of the world's worst alien invasive species, and many studies used published markers without such knowledge, potentially propagating errors.
Main conclusions
The rapidly growing use of eDNA‐based detection of low‐abundance species requires well‐designed protocols to improve sensitivity. Knowledge of the limits of eDNA technology is imperative, particularly when applied to conservation biogeography studies for detecting non‐indigenous or endangered species. Our results highlight the currently inadequate sensitivity screening of genetic markers used in most studies, contrasting the transition to highly sensitive PCR methods. Along with ongoing calls for standardization in the eDNA methods, we add that newly designed markers be screened to determine and optimize sensitivity before use to reduce the uncertainty of detection and benefit future applications within or beyond areas of their development.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</subject><subject>Biogeography</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>DNA probes</subject><subject>Endangered & extinct species</subject><subject>Endangered species</subject><subject>Environmental DNA</subject><subject>false negatives</subject><subject>Genetic markers</subject><subject>Genetic screening</subject><subject>Indigenous species</subject><subject>Introduced species</subject><subject>Invasive species</subject><subject>limit of detection</subject><subject>marker screening</subject><subject>Markers</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Nonnative species</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>PCR method</subject><subject>Polymerase chain reaction</subject><subject>Protection and preservation</subject><subject>Rare species</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>Time series</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1366-9516</issn><issn>1472-4642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtLAzEQh4MoWKsH7woFTx62zftxLK0vKHhQz2E3O1tS292abJX-98auDwTNHCZMvm8CP4ROCR6SdEZl6YeEUUn3UI9wRTMuOd1PdyZlZgSRh-goxgXGmDFBe-jswQWA2tfzwSoPzxAGEeroW__q2-0xOqjyZYSTz95HT9dXj5PbbHZ_czcZzzLHtKSZFpqB0xzLqiikUDx1TDAhFOuK58ooqDgIWeSFEEawXBFptDYaTJmegfXRRbd3HZqXDcTWLppNqNOXlgqlKDZSiB9qni_B-rpq2pC7lY_OjhXBShCxo4Z_UKlKWHnX1FD5NP8lXHaCC02MASq7Dj5lsbUE249MbcrU7jJN7Khj39KS7f-gnU7vvozzzljEtgnfBk-5EcM4ewcAt30q</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Xia, Zhiqiang</creator><creator>Zhan, Aibin</creator><creator>Johansson, Mattias L.</creator><creator>DeRoy, Emma</creator><creator>Haffner, Gordon Douglas</creator><creator>MacIsaac, Hugh J.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-1238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-1043</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>Screening marker sensitivity</title><author>Xia, Zhiqiang ; Zhan, Aibin ; Johansson, Mattias L. ; DeRoy, Emma ; Haffner, Gordon Douglas ; MacIsaac, Hugh J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3862-8583ec8406fbb65746fb01011208f4a797ef4e56bab55953a71698898e9d4a7e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</topic><topic>Biogeography</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>DNA probes</topic><topic>Endangered & extinct species</topic><topic>Endangered species</topic><topic>Environmental DNA</topic><topic>false negatives</topic><topic>Genetic markers</topic><topic>Genetic screening</topic><topic>Indigenous species</topic><topic>Introduced species</topic><topic>Invasive species</topic><topic>limit of detection</topic><topic>marker screening</topic><topic>Markers</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Nonnative species</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>PCR method</topic><topic>Polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Protection and preservation</topic><topic>Rare species</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>Time series</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xia, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhan, Aibin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansson, Mattias L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeRoy, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haffner, Gordon Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacIsaac, Hugh J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xia, Zhiqiang</au><au>Zhan, Aibin</au><au>Johansson, Mattias L.</au><au>DeRoy, Emma</au><au>Haffner, Gordon Douglas</au><au>MacIsaac, Hugh J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Screening marker sensitivity: Optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection</atitle><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1981</spage><epage>1988</epage><pages>1981-1988</pages><issn>1366-9516</issn><eissn>1472-4642</eissn><abstract>Aim
Environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based techniques are useful tools in disciplines such as conservation biogeography at local to global scales since they provide promising methods to locate organisms at low abundance. Here, we raise a largely overlooked issue that the marker (primer pairs and/or probes) sensitivity of eDNA‐based detection should be optimized and reported to improve detection performance and result interpretation.
Location
Global.
Methods
We analysed 250 articles published between 2008 and 2019 that sought to detect animals from environmental water samples using species‐specific markers to identify effort required.
Results
Most (66.0%) studies used newly designed markers, and real‐time quantitative PCR dominated the studies (72.4% of articles). The use of quantitative PCR increased significantly over time (p = .016), while conventional PCR decreased significantly (p = .005). In 82.4% of studies using newly designed markers, researchers did not screen their chosen markers for sensitivity, and 46.7% of these studies did not report the limit of detection (LoD). Limited knowledge of sensitivity screening and LoD was also found among aquatic species on the list of the world's worst alien invasive species, and many studies used published markers without such knowledge, potentially propagating errors.
Main conclusions
The rapidly growing use of eDNA‐based detection of low‐abundance species requires well‐designed protocols to improve sensitivity. Knowledge of the limits of eDNA technology is imperative, particularly when applied to conservation biogeography studies for detecting non‐indigenous or endangered species. Our results highlight the currently inadequate sensitivity screening of genetic markers used in most studies, contrasting the transition to highly sensitive PCR methods. Along with ongoing calls for standardization in the eDNA methods, we add that newly designed markers be screened to determine and optimize sensitivity before use to reduce the uncertainty of detection and benefit future applications within or beyond areas of their development.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/ddi.13262</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-1238</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-1043</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1366-9516 |
ispartof | Diversity & distributions, 2021-10, Vol.27 (10), p.1981-1988 |
issn | 1366-9516 1472-4642 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2577209655 |
source | Jstor Journals Open Access |
subjects | Abundance aquatic ecosystems BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH Biogeography Conservation Datasets DNA probes Endangered & extinct species Endangered species Environmental DNA false negatives Genetic markers Genetic screening Indigenous species Introduced species Invasive species limit of detection marker screening Markers Methods Nonnative species Optimization PCR method Polymerase chain reaction Protection and preservation Rare species Screening Sensitivity Standardization Time series Water analysis Water sampling Wildlife conservation |
title | Screening marker sensitivity: Optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T00%3A25%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_JFNAL&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Screening%20marker%20sensitivity:%20Optimizing%20eDNA-based%20rare%20species%20detection&rft.jtitle=Diversity%20&%20distributions&rft.au=Xia,%20Zhiqiang&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1981&rft.epage=1988&rft.pages=1981-1988&rft.issn=1366-9516&rft.eissn=1472-4642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ddi.13262&rft_dat=%3Cgale_JFNAL%3EA710751555%3C/gale_JFNAL%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2577209655&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A710751555&rft_jstor_id=48621934&rfr_iscdi=true |