基于eDNA元条形码的城市淡水海滩、沙洲和河流粪便指示菌超标的来源归属

IF 3.5 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Faizan Saleem, Jennifer L. Jiang, Enze Li, Kevin L. Tran, Herb E. Schellhorn and Thomas A. Edge
{"title":"基于eDNA元条形码的城市淡水海滩、沙洲和河流粪便指示菌超标的来源归属","authors":"Faizan Saleem, Jennifer L. Jiang, Enze Li, Kevin L. Tran, Herb E. Schellhorn and Thomas A. Edge","doi":"10.1039/D4VA00221K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Freshwater beach quality is routinely tested by measuring fecal indicator bacteria, which can assess water quality but cannot identify sources of fecal contamination. We compared eDNA metabarcoding and microbial source tracking (MST) digital PCR methods to identify fecal contamination sources in water and sand at four urban Lake Ontario beaches and two nearby river mouth locations. eDNA sequences matched mammal, bird, and fish taxa known in the study area. Human eDNA sequences were prominent in all water and sand samples such that they had less value for discriminating between sewage occurrence at sites. Mallard duck, muskrat, beaver, raccoon, gull, robin, chicken, red fox, and cow eDNA sequences were common across all locations. Dog, Canada goose, and swan eDNA sequences were more common in Toronto beach waters, suggesting localized sources. MST results were generally consistent with eDNA, such as finding the Gull4 DNA marker and the human mitochondrial DNA marker in most water and sand samples. Chicken, cow, and dog eDNA sequences and the human bacterial MST DNA marker often showed a higher frequency of occurrence on Beach Action Value (BAV) exceedance days. The surprisingly widespread detection of chicken and cow eDNA sequences was likely from incompletely digested human food, raising caution for interpreting eDNA results related to food animals in sewage-contaminated urban settings. Combined use of MST and eDNA methods provided a more comprehensive characterization of potential fecal contamination sources, including diverse wildlife species at the human–animal One Health interface, that can guide targeted beach-specific water monitoring and risk management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":72941,"journal":{"name":"Environmental science. Advances","volume":" 3","pages":" 456-468"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/va/d4va00221k?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"eDNA metabarcoding-based source attribution of fecal indicator bacteria exceedances in urban freshwater beaches, sand and rivers†\",\"authors\":\"Faizan Saleem, Jennifer L. Jiang, Enze Li, Kevin L. Tran, Herb E. Schellhorn and Thomas A. Edge\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D4VA00221K\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Freshwater beach quality is routinely tested by measuring fecal indicator bacteria, which can assess water quality but cannot identify sources of fecal contamination. We compared eDNA metabarcoding and microbial source tracking (MST) digital PCR methods to identify fecal contamination sources in water and sand at four urban Lake Ontario beaches and two nearby river mouth locations. eDNA sequences matched mammal, bird, and fish taxa known in the study area. Human eDNA sequences were prominent in all water and sand samples such that they had less value for discriminating between sewage occurrence at sites. Mallard duck, muskrat, beaver, raccoon, gull, robin, chicken, red fox, and cow eDNA sequences were common across all locations. Dog, Canada goose, and swan eDNA sequences were more common in Toronto beach waters, suggesting localized sources. MST results were generally consistent with eDNA, such as finding the Gull4 DNA marker and the human mitochondrial DNA marker in most water and sand samples. Chicken, cow, and dog eDNA sequences and the human bacterial MST DNA marker often showed a higher frequency of occurrence on Beach Action Value (BAV) exceedance days. The surprisingly widespread detection of chicken and cow eDNA sequences was likely from incompletely digested human food, raising caution for interpreting eDNA results related to food animals in sewage-contaminated urban settings. Combined use of MST and eDNA methods provided a more comprehensive characterization of potential fecal contamination sources, including diverse wildlife species at the human–animal One Health interface, that can guide targeted beach-specific water monitoring and risk management strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental science. Advances\",\"volume\":\" 3\",\"pages\":\" 456-468\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2025/va/d4va00221k?page=search\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental science. Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/va/d4va00221k\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental science. Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/va/d4va00221k","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

淡水海滩的水质通常是通过测量粪便指示细菌来检测的,这种细菌可以评估水质,但不能确定粪便污染的来源。我们比较了eDNA元条形码和微生物源跟踪(MST)数字PCR方法,以确定四个安大略湖城市海滩和两个附近河口地点的水和沙子中的粪便污染源。eDNA序列与研究区域已知的哺乳动物、鸟类和鱼类分类群相匹配。人类eDNA序列在所有的水和沙样品中都很突出,因此它们对辨别污水发生的价值较小。绿头鸭、麝鼠、海狸、浣熊、海鸥、知更鸟、鸡、红狐和牛的dna序列在所有地点都是常见的。狗、加拿大鹅和天鹅的eDNA序列在多伦多海滩水域更为常见,表明其来源是局部的。MST结果与eDNA基本一致,例如在大多数水和沙样品中发现了Gull4 DNA标记和人类线粒体DNA标记。鸡、牛、狗的eDNA序列和人细菌MST DNA标记在BAV超标天数出现的频率较高。令人惊讶的是,鸡和牛的eDNA序列的广泛检测可能来自未完全消化的人类食物,这提高了对在污水污染的城市环境中解释食用动物的eDNA结果的谨慎。结合使用MST和eDNA方法,可以更全面地表征潜在的粪便污染源,包括人类-动物One Health界面上的各种野生动物物种,从而可以指导有针对性的海滩特定水监测和风险管理战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

eDNA metabarcoding-based source attribution of fecal indicator bacteria exceedances in urban freshwater beaches, sand and rivers†

eDNA metabarcoding-based source attribution of fecal indicator bacteria exceedances in urban freshwater beaches, sand and rivers†

Freshwater beach quality is routinely tested by measuring fecal indicator bacteria, which can assess water quality but cannot identify sources of fecal contamination. We compared eDNA metabarcoding and microbial source tracking (MST) digital PCR methods to identify fecal contamination sources in water and sand at four urban Lake Ontario beaches and two nearby river mouth locations. eDNA sequences matched mammal, bird, and fish taxa known in the study area. Human eDNA sequences were prominent in all water and sand samples such that they had less value for discriminating between sewage occurrence at sites. Mallard duck, muskrat, beaver, raccoon, gull, robin, chicken, red fox, and cow eDNA sequences were common across all locations. Dog, Canada goose, and swan eDNA sequences were more common in Toronto beach waters, suggesting localized sources. MST results were generally consistent with eDNA, such as finding the Gull4 DNA marker and the human mitochondrial DNA marker in most water and sand samples. Chicken, cow, and dog eDNA sequences and the human bacterial MST DNA marker often showed a higher frequency of occurrence on Beach Action Value (BAV) exceedance days. The surprisingly widespread detection of chicken and cow eDNA sequences was likely from incompletely digested human food, raising caution for interpreting eDNA results related to food animals in sewage-contaminated urban settings. Combined use of MST and eDNA methods provided a more comprehensive characterization of potential fecal contamination sources, including diverse wildlife species at the human–animal One Health interface, that can guide targeted beach-specific water monitoring and risk management strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信