Publicação
Species detection from aquatic eDNA: assessing the importance of capture methods
| dc.contributor.author | Peixoto, Sara | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chaves, Cátia | |
| dc.contributor.author | Velo-Antón, Guillermo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Beja, Pedro | |
| dc.contributor.author | Egeter, Bastian | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-02T13:38:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-06-02T13:38:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.description | Original Research | pt_PT |
| dc.description.abstract | 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 | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | Environmental DNA. 2021;3:435–448 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/edn3.130 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/21417 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | Wiley | pt_PT |
| dc.relation | IF/01425/2014 | pt_PT |
| dc.relation | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Grant/Award Number: 668981 | pt_PT |
| dc.relation | BIOPOLIS - Teaming to Upgrade to Excellence in Environmental Biology, Ecosystem Research and AgroBiodiversity, Grant/Award Number: 857251 | pt_PT |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | amphibians, | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | capture methods | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | environmental DNA | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | PCR replication thresholds | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Salamandra salamandra | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Species detection from aquatic eDNA: assessing the importance of capture methods | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.title | Environmental DNA | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |