自保存eDNA滤波器的现场试验及长期监测中改变方法时校准的重要性

IF 6.2 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
David S. Pilliod, Michaela R. Grossklaus, Matthew B. Laramie, Austen C. Thomas
{"title":"自保存eDNA滤波器的现场试验及长期监测中改变方法时校准的重要性","authors":"David S. Pilliod,&nbsp;Michaela R. Grossklaus,&nbsp;Matthew B. Laramie,&nbsp;Austen C. Thomas","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Filtering water is currently the primary field method used for collecting aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA). One of the drawbacks of filtering is the need to transfer the filter from the filter housing to a preservative-filled container in the field. New products are being developed to avoid this handling step, but comparative studies are needed to ensure that new protocols are transferable within and across eDNA monitoring programs with requisite calibration. To meet this need, we evaluated two filter preservation methods (self-preserving vs. ethanol) of the 5.0 μm polyethersulfone (PES) filter membrane in a field trial typical of stream fisheries eDNA sampling. We compared eDNA detection rates and yield for free-swimming rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> (Walbaum, 1792), from streams in Washington, United States, and British Columbia, Canada, while accounting for the effects of three environmental covariates: stream discharge, water temperature, and target species abundance. Given these streams were part of an ongoing fisheries eDNA monitoring program, we also compared results against those generated from the original protocol, which used a 0.45-μm cellulose nitrate (CN) filter membrane and ethanol preservative. This secondary comparison allowed us to demonstrate the importance of calibration when changing sampling methods. We found no significant difference in rainbow trout detection rate and limited evidence for a difference in DNA yield between the self-preserving and ethanol-preserved 5.0 μm PES filters. DNA yield was higher in samples collected using the original protocol, possibly because of the smaller pore size or CN membrane material. Detection rate was not influenced by environmental covariates; however, DNA yield increased with increases in trout abundance and declined with increases in discharge and water temperature. These results could help inform fisheries eDNA monitoring programs that are considering switching to self-preserving filters.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"7 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70104","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Field Test of the Self-Preserving eDNA Filter and the Importance of Calibration When Changing Methods During Long-Term Monitoring\",\"authors\":\"David S. Pilliod,&nbsp;Michaela R. Grossklaus,&nbsp;Matthew B. Laramie,&nbsp;Austen C. Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.70104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Filtering water is currently the primary field method used for collecting aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA). One of the drawbacks of filtering is the need to transfer the filter from the filter housing to a preservative-filled container in the field. New products are being developed to avoid this handling step, but comparative studies are needed to ensure that new protocols are transferable within and across eDNA monitoring programs with requisite calibration. To meet this need, we evaluated two filter preservation methods (self-preserving vs. ethanol) of the 5.0 μm polyethersulfone (PES) filter membrane in a field trial typical of stream fisheries eDNA sampling. We compared eDNA detection rates and yield for free-swimming rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> (Walbaum, 1792), from streams in Washington, United States, and British Columbia, Canada, while accounting for the effects of three environmental covariates: stream discharge, water temperature, and target species abundance. Given these streams were part of an ongoing fisheries eDNA monitoring program, we also compared results against those generated from the original protocol, which used a 0.45-μm cellulose nitrate (CN) filter membrane and ethanol preservative. This secondary comparison allowed us to demonstrate the importance of calibration when changing sampling methods. We found no significant difference in rainbow trout detection rate and limited evidence for a difference in DNA yield between the self-preserving and ethanol-preserved 5.0 μm PES filters. DNA yield was higher in samples collected using the original protocol, possibly because of the smaller pore size or CN membrane material. Detection rate was not influenced by environmental covariates; however, DNA yield increased with increases in trout abundance and declined with increases in discharge and water temperature. These results could help inform fisheries eDNA monitoring programs that are considering switching to self-preserving filters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":\"7 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70104\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过滤水是目前收集水生环境DNA (eDNA)的主要野外方法。过滤的缺点之一是需要将过滤器从过滤器外壳转移到现场填充防腐剂的容器中。新产品正在开发中,以避免这一处理步骤,但需要进行比较研究,以确保新方案在eDNA监测程序内部和之间可转移,并进行必要的校准。为了满足这一需求,我们对5.0 μm聚醚砜(PES)过滤膜的两种过滤保存方法(自我保存和乙醇保存)进行了评估,并进行了典型的溪流渔业eDNA采样现场试验。我们比较了来自美国华盛顿和加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省河流的自由游泳虹鳟鱼Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)的eDNA检出率和产量,同时考虑了三个环境变量的影响:河流流量、水温和目标物种丰度。考虑到这些流是正在进行的渔业eDNA监测计划的一部分,我们还将结果与使用0.45 μm硝酸纤维素(CN)过滤膜和乙醇防腐剂的原始方案产生的结果进行了比较。这种二次比较使我们能够证明在改变采样方法时校准的重要性。我们发现自保存和乙醇保存的5.0 μm PES过滤器在虹鳟鱼检出率上没有显著差异,并且DNA产率差异的证据有限。使用原始方案收集的样品的DNA产率更高,可能是因为孔径较小或CN膜材料。检出率不受环境协变量的影响;然而,DNA产量随鳟鱼丰度的增加而增加,随流量和水温的增加而下降。这些结果可以帮助告知正在考虑改用自我保护过滤器的渔业eDNA监测项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Field Test of the Self-Preserving eDNA Filter and the Importance of Calibration When Changing Methods During Long-Term Monitoring

Field Test of the Self-Preserving eDNA Filter and the Importance of Calibration When Changing Methods During Long-Term Monitoring

Filtering water is currently the primary field method used for collecting aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA). One of the drawbacks of filtering is the need to transfer the filter from the filter housing to a preservative-filled container in the field. New products are being developed to avoid this handling step, but comparative studies are needed to ensure that new protocols are transferable within and across eDNA monitoring programs with requisite calibration. To meet this need, we evaluated two filter preservation methods (self-preserving vs. ethanol) of the 5.0 μm polyethersulfone (PES) filter membrane in a field trial typical of stream fisheries eDNA sampling. We compared eDNA detection rates and yield for free-swimming rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792), from streams in Washington, United States, and British Columbia, Canada, while accounting for the effects of three environmental covariates: stream discharge, water temperature, and target species abundance. Given these streams were part of an ongoing fisheries eDNA monitoring program, we also compared results against those generated from the original protocol, which used a 0.45-μm cellulose nitrate (CN) filter membrane and ethanol preservative. This secondary comparison allowed us to demonstrate the importance of calibration when changing sampling methods. We found no significant difference in rainbow trout detection rate and limited evidence for a difference in DNA yield between the self-preserving and ethanol-preserved 5.0 μm PES filters. DNA yield was higher in samples collected using the original protocol, possibly because of the smaller pore size or CN membrane material. Detection rate was not influenced by environmental covariates; however, DNA yield increased with increases in trout abundance and declined with increases in discharge and water temperature. These results could help inform fisheries eDNA monitoring programs that are considering switching to self-preserving filters.

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
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信