{"title":"Optimizing waterborne eDNA capture from waterholes in savanna systems under remote field conditions","authors":"Tamara Schenekar, Janine Baxter, Metlholo Andries Phukuntsi, Irmgard Sedlmayr, Byron Weckworth, Monica Mwale","doi":"10.1111/1755-0998.13942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is used for biodiversity assessments in a variety of ecosystems across the globe, whereby different eDNA concentration, preservation and extraction methods can outperform others depending on the sampling conditions and environment. Tropical and subtropical ecosystems in Africa are among the less studied systems concerning eDNA-based monitoring. Waterholes in arid parts of southern Africa represent important agglomeration points for terrestrial mammals, and the eDNA shed into such waterbodies provides a powerful source of information for monitoring mammalian biodiversity in the surrounding area. However, the applied methods for eDNA sampling, preservation and filtering in different freshwater systems vary greatly, and rigorous protocol testing in African freshwater systems is still lacking. This study represents the first attempt to examine variations in eDNA concentration, preservation and extraction methods under remote field conditions using waterborne eDNA in a savanna system. Collected samples were heavily affected by microalgal and bacterial growth, impeding eDNA capture and PCR success. We demonstrate clear effects of the methodological choices, which also depend on the state of eDNA. A preliminary metabarcoding run showed little taxonomic overlap in mammal species detection between two metabarcoding primers tested. We recommend water filtering (using filters with pore sizes >1 μm) over centrifugation for eDNA concentration, Longmire's solution for ambient temperature sample preservation and Qiagen's DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit for DNA extraction of these inhibitor-prone samples. Furthermore, at least two independent metabarcoding markers should be utilized in order to maximize species detections in metabarcoding studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":211,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Ecology Resources","volume":"24 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1755-0998.13942","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Ecology Resources","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.13942","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is used for biodiversity assessments in a variety of ecosystems across the globe, whereby different eDNA concentration, preservation and extraction methods can outperform others depending on the sampling conditions and environment. Tropical and subtropical ecosystems in Africa are among the less studied systems concerning eDNA-based monitoring. Waterholes in arid parts of southern Africa represent important agglomeration points for terrestrial mammals, and the eDNA shed into such waterbodies provides a powerful source of information for monitoring mammalian biodiversity in the surrounding area. However, the applied methods for eDNA sampling, preservation and filtering in different freshwater systems vary greatly, and rigorous protocol testing in African freshwater systems is still lacking. This study represents the first attempt to examine variations in eDNA concentration, preservation and extraction methods under remote field conditions using waterborne eDNA in a savanna system. Collected samples were heavily affected by microalgal and bacterial growth, impeding eDNA capture and PCR success. We demonstrate clear effects of the methodological choices, which also depend on the state of eDNA. A preliminary metabarcoding run showed little taxonomic overlap in mammal species detection between two metabarcoding primers tested. We recommend water filtering (using filters with pore sizes >1 μm) over centrifugation for eDNA concentration, Longmire's solution for ambient temperature sample preservation and Qiagen's DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit for DNA extraction of these inhibitor-prone samples. Furthermore, at least two independent metabarcoding markers should be utilized in order to maximize species detections in metabarcoding studies.
期刊介绍:
Molecular Ecology Resources promotes the creation of comprehensive resources for the scientific community, encompassing computer programs, statistical and molecular advancements, and a diverse array of molecular tools. Serving as a conduit for disseminating these resources, the journal targets a broad audience of researchers in the fields of evolution, ecology, and conservation. Articles in Molecular Ecology Resources are crafted to support investigations tackling significant questions within these disciplines.
In addition to original resource articles, Molecular Ecology Resources features Reviews, Opinions, and Comments relevant to the field. The journal also periodically releases Special Issues focusing on resource development within specific areas.