The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples
Open accessAbstract
The environmental DNA (eDNA) method is a detection technique that is rapidly gaining credibility as a sensitive tool useful in the surveillance and monitoring of invasive and threatened species. Because eDNA analysis often deals with small quantities of short and degraded DNA fragments, methods that maximize eDNA recovery are required to increase detectability. In this study, we performed experiments at different stages of the eDNA analysis to show which combinations of methods give the best recovery rate for eDNA. Using Oriental weatherloach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) as a study species, we show that various combinations of DNA capture, preservation and extraction methods can significantly affect DNA yield. Filtration using cellulose nitrate filter paper preserved in ethanol or stored in a -20°C freezer and extracted with the Qiagen DNeasy kit outperformed other combinations in terms of cost and efficiency of DNA recovery. Our results support the recommendation to filter water samples within 24hours but if this is not possible, our results suggest that refrigeration may be a better option than freezing for short-term storage (i.e., 3-5 days). This information is useful in designing eDNA detection of low-density invasive or threatened species, where small variations in DNA recovery can signify the difference between detection success or failure.
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
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480
An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2333709 · Cited by 23,469
Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Dejean, T., Griffiths, R. A., Foster, J., Wilkinson, J. W., Arnell, A., Brotherton, P., et al. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029 · Cited by 503
Cited by
Ames, C. L., Ohdera, A. H., Colston, S. M., Collins, A. G., Fitt, W. K., Morandini, A. C., Erickson, J. S., & Vora, G. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.640527 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Hinlo, R., Gleeson, D., Lintermans, M., & Furlan, E.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-06-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e0179251
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2624894188
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0179251
- The paper
- Hinlo, R., Gleeson, D., Lintermans, M., & Furlan, E. (2017). Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179251
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.