| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2 MB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used for biodiversity monitoring, particularly
in aquatic systems. However, each step, from sample collection to bioinformatic
analysis, can introduce biases and influence the reliability of results. While much effort
has been put into the optimization of laboratory methods, less attention has
been devoted to estimate the impacts of eDNA capture methods. To address this
issue, water samples were collected at nine small ponds and puddles where up to 10
amphibian species occur, using precipitation, disc filters, and capsules. We focused
on targeted detection of an amphibian species, Salamandra salamandra, and on the
composition of the whole amphibian community. Species detection was performed
using a novel qPCR assay for S. salamandra and high-throughput sequencing, combined
with stringent versus relaxed PCR replication thresholds. Filtration techniques
(disc filters and capsules) outperformed precipitation, generating a higher number
of detections of S. salamandra and higher amounts of captured eDNA, while species
detection was identical between disc filters and capsules. There were no significant
differences between capture methods regarding amphibian community composition.
The variation in detection success associated with capture methods was far higher
than that associated with PCR replication, regardless of the detection method used.
Our results highlight the importance of choosing a suitable capture method for eDNA
studies and suggest that the choice of capture method outweighs the choice of detection
method used. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare
high-capacity capsules with common eDNA methods for water samples, such as precipitation
and standard disc filters
Descrição
Original Research
Palavras-chave
amphibians, capture methods environmental DNA PCR replication thresholds Salamandra salamandra
Contexto Educativo
Citação
Environmental DNA. 2021;3:435–448
Editora
Wiley
