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)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diversity & distributions 2021-10, Vol.27 (10), p.1981-1988
Hauptverfasser: Xia, Zhiqiang, Zhan, Aibin, Johansson, Mattias L., DeRoy, Emma, Haffner, Gordon Douglas, MacIsaac, Hugh J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; distributions, 2021-10, Vol.27 (10), p.1981-1988</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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