The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying Environmental DNA Signals for Aquatic Invasive Species Across Multiple Detection Platforms
Open accessAbstract
The use of molecular surveillance techniques has become popular among aquatic researchers and managers due to the improved sensitivity and efficiency compared to traditional sampling methods. Rapid expansion in the use of environmental DNA (eDNA), paired with the advancement of molecular technologies, has resulted in new detection platforms and techniques. In this study we present a comparison of three eDNA surveillance platforms: traditional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), quantitative PCR (qPCR), and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in which water samples were collected over a 24 h time period from mesocosm experiments containing a population gradient of invasive species densities. All platforms reliably detected the presence of DNA, even at low target organism densities within the first hour. The two quantitative platforms (qPCR and ddPCR) produced similar estimates of DNA concentrations. The analyses completed with ddPCR was faster from sample collection through analyses and cost approximately half the expenditure of qPCR. Although a new platform for eDNA surveillance of aquatic species, ddPCR was consistent with more commonly used qPCR and a cost-effective means of estimating DNA concentrations. Use of ddPCR by researchers and managers should be considered in future eDNA surveillance applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whale, A. S., Huggett, J. F., Cowen, S., Speirs, V., Shaw, J., Ellison, S., Foy, C. A., & Scott, D. J. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks203 · Cited by 453
Weaver, S., Dube, S., Mir, A., Qin, J., Sun, G., Ramakrishnan, R., Jones, R. C., & Livak, K. J. (2010) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.01.003 · Cited by 220
Cited by
Hering, D., Borja, A., Jones, J. I., Pont, D., Boets, P., Bouchez, A., Bruce, K., Drakare, S., Hänfling, B., Kahlert, M., et al. (2018) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003 · Cited by 455
Rourke, M. L., Fowler, A. M., Hughes, J. M., Broadhurst, M. K., DiBattista, J. D., Fielder, S., Wilkes Walburn, J., & Furlan, E. M. (2022) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.185 · Cited by 435
Uses and Misuses of Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Science and Conservation
Cristescu, M. E., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2018) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062306 · Cited by 344
Historical baselines in marine bioinvasions: Implications for policy and management
Ojaveer, H., Galil, B. S., Carlton, J. T., Alleway, H., Goulletquer, P., Lehtiniemi, M., Marchini, A., Miller, W., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., Peharda, M., et al. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202383 · Cited by 184
Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds
Mauvisseau, Q., Coignet, A., Delaunay, C., Pinet, F., Bouchon, D., & Souty-Grosset, C. (2018) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3288-y · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Nathan, L. M., Simmons, M., Wegleitner, B. J., Jerde, C. L., & Mahon, A. R.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-10-23
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 12800-12806
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2002221387
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.