Which filter should I use? A comparative study of environmental DNA concentration methods for detection of freshwater species

IF 1.8 3区环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Aquatic Sciences Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI:10.1007/s00027-025-01222-x

Paula V. Stica, Marcio R. Pie, Aline Horodesky, Giorgi Dal Pont, Nathieli Cozer, Vilmar Biernaski, Otto S. M. Netto, Andréia Szortyka, Adriano Baldissera, Antonio Ostrensky

{"title":"Which filter should I use? A comparative study of environmental DNA concentration methods for detection of freshwater species","authors":"Paula V. Stica, Marcio R. Pie, Aline Horodesky, Giorgi Dal Pont, Nathieli Cozer, Vilmar Biernaski, Otto S. M. Netto, Andréia Szortyka, Adriano Baldissera, Antonio Ostrensky","doi":"10.1007/s00027-025-01222-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a valuable tool for detecting aquatic species, but the efficiency of eDNA recovery is influenced by concentration methods. This study investigated the effectiveness of different eDNA concentration methods to optimise detection protocols for aquatic species in freshwater samples. Using water samples collected from controlled experimental systems, we tested ten types of filters, three pore sizes and an ethanol precipitation protocol to recover eDNA particles. Two invasive aquatic species, the benthic golden mussel (<i>Limnoperna fortunei</i>) and the limnetic Nile tilapia (<i>Oreochromis niloticus</i>), were used as biological models. Differences in DNA concentration were observed among samples from the two tested species. For Nile tilapia, filter materials showed uniform performance without significant differences, whereas cellulose nitrate filters yielded the highest eDNA concentrations for golden mussels. Ethanol precipitation was the least effective method for both species. Filtration time analysis revealed that polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters had the slowest filtration rates, whereas glass fibre filters had the fastest. A significant negative correlation was observed between filter pore size and eDNA retention for both species, with 0.4-μm and 0.2-μm pore sizes being more effective. These findings highlight the importance of selecting adequate filters and pore sizes to optimise eDNA capture efficiency. This study contributes to standardised protocols, enhancing precision and reproducibility in ecological assessments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55489,"journal":{"name":"Aquatic Sciences","volume":"87 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aquatic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-025-01222-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a valuable tool for detecting aquatic species, but the efficiency of eDNA recovery is influenced by concentration methods. This study investigated the effectiveness of different eDNA concentration methods to optimise detection protocols for aquatic species in freshwater samples. Using water samples collected from controlled experimental systems, we tested ten types of filters, three pore sizes and an ethanol precipitation protocol to recover eDNA particles. Two invasive aquatic species, the benthic golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) and the limnetic Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), were used as biological models. Differences in DNA concentration were observed among samples from the two tested species. For Nile tilapia, filter materials showed uniform performance without significant differences, whereas cellulose nitrate filters yielded the highest eDNA concentrations for golden mussels. Ethanol precipitation was the least effective method for both species. Filtration time analysis revealed that polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters had the slowest filtration rates, whereas glass fibre filters had the fastest. A significant negative correlation was observed between filter pore size and eDNA retention for both species, with 0.4-μm and 0.2-μm pore sizes being more effective. These findings highlight the importance of selecting adequate filters and pore sizes to optimise eDNA capture efficiency. This study contributes to standardised protocols, enhancing precision and reproducibility in ecological assessments.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我应该使用哪个过滤器？环境DNA浓度法检测淡水物种的比较研究

环境DNA （Environmental DNA, eDNA）是一种有价值的水生物种检测工具，但eDNA的恢复效率受浓度法的影响。本研究考察了不同eDNA浓度方法的有效性，以优化淡水样品中水生物种的检测方案。使用从受控实验系统收集的水样，我们测试了十种过滤器，三种孔径和乙醇沉淀方案来回收eDNA颗粒。以底栖金贻贝（Limnoperna fortunei）和尼罗河罗非鱼（Oreochromis niloticus）两种入侵水生物种为生物模型。在两个被测物种的样本中观察到DNA浓度的差异。对于尼罗罗非鱼，过滤材料表现出一致的性能，没有显著差异，而对于金贻贝，硝酸盐纤维素过滤器产生的eDNA浓度最高。乙醇沉淀法对两种植物的提取效果最差。过滤时间分析表明，聚四氟乙烯（PTFE）过滤器的过滤速度最慢，而玻璃纤维过滤器的过滤速度最快。两种物种的过滤器孔径大小与eDNA保留率呈显著负相关，0.4 μm和0.2 μm的孔径大小更有效。这些发现强调了选择合适的过滤器和孔径以优化eDNA捕获效率的重要性。本研究有助于标准化的方案，提高精度和可重复性的生态评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Aquatic Sciences 环境科学-海洋与淡水生物学

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

4.20%

发文量

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： Aquatic Sciences – Research Across Boundaries publishes original research, overviews, and reviews dealing with aquatic systems (both freshwater and marine systems) and their boundaries, including the impact of human activities on these systems. The coverage ranges from molecular-level mechanistic studies to investigations at the whole ecosystem scale. Aquatic Sciences publishes articles presenting research across disciplinary and environmental boundaries, including studies examining interactions among geological, microbial, biological, chemical, physical, hydrological, and societal processes, as well as studies assessing land-water, air-water, benthic-pelagic, river-ocean, lentic-lotic, and groundwater-surface water interactions.