Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter

Open access
Spens, Johan, Evans, Alice R., Halfmaerten, David, Knudsen, Steen W., Sengupta, Mita E., Mak, Sarah S. T., Sigsgaard, Eva E., Hellström, Micaela·2017·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: Aqueous environmental DNA (eDNA) is an emerging efficient non‐invasive tool for species inventory studies. To maximize performance of downstream quantitative PCR (qPCR) and next‐generation sequencing (NGS) applications, quality and quantity of the starting material is crucial, calling for optimized capture, storage and extraction techniques of eDNA. Previous comparative studies for eDNA capture/storage have tested precipitation and ‘open’ filters. However, practical ‘enclosed’ filters which reduce unnecessary handling have not been included. Here, we fill this gap by comparing a filter capsule (Sterivex‐GP polyethersulfone, pore size 0·22 μm, hereafter called SX) with commonly used methods. Our experimental set‐up, covering altogether 41 treatments combining capture by precipitation or filtration with different preservation techniques and storage times, sampled one single lake (and a fish‐free control pond). We selected documented capture methods that have successfully targeted a wide range of fauna. The eDNA was extracted using an optimized protocol modified from the DN easy® Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen). We measured total eDNA concentrations and Cq‐values (cycles used for DNA quantification by qPCR) to target specific mt DNA cytochrome b (cyt b) sequences in two local keystone fish species. SX yielded higher amounts of total eDNA along with lower Cq‐values than polycarbonate track‐etched filters (PCTE), glass fibre filters (GF) or ethanol precipitation (EP). SX also generated lower Cq‐values than cellulose nitrate filters (CN) for one of the target species. DNA integrity of SX samples did not decrease significantly after 2 weeks of storage in contrast to GF and PCTE. Adding preservative before storage improved SX results. In conclusion, we recommend SX filters (originally designed for filtering micro‐organisms) as an efficient capture method for sampling macrobial eDNA. Ethanol or Longmire's buffer preservation of SX immediately after filtration is recommended. Preserved SX capsules may be stored at room temperature for at least 2 weeks without significant degradation. Reduced handling and less exposure to outside stress compared with other filters may contribute to better eDNA results. SX capsules are easily transported and enable eDNA sampling in remote and harsh field conditions as samples can be filtered/preserved on site.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12683

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Spens, J., Evans, A. R., Halfmaerten, D., Knudsen, S. W., Sengupta, M. E., Mak, S. S. T., Sigsgaard, E. E., & Hellström, M.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-15
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
635-645
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555010976
Cited by
388
References
1
FWCI
19.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.