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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol : advantage of enclosed filter. / Spens, Johan; Evans, Alice Ruth; Halfmaerten, David; Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm; Sengupta, Mita Eva; Mak, Sarah; Sigsgaard, Eva Egelyng; Hellström, Ann Micaela.

In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 8, No. 5, 05.2017, p. 635-645.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Spens, J, Evans, AR, Halfmaerten, D, Knudsen, SW, Sengupta, ME, Mak, S, Sigsgaard, EE & Hellström, AM 2017, 'Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter', Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 635-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12683

APA

Spens, J., Evans, A. R., Halfmaerten, D., Knudsen, S. W., Sengupta, M. E., Mak, S., Sigsgaard, E. E., & Hellström, A. M. (2017). Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(5), 635-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12683

Vancouver

Spens J, Evans AR, Halfmaerten D, Knudsen SW, Sengupta ME, Mak S et al. Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2017 May;8(5):635-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12683

Author

Spens, Johan ; Evans, Alice Ruth ; Halfmaerten, David ; Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm ; Sengupta, Mita Eva ; Mak, Sarah ; Sigsgaard, Eva Egelyng ; Hellström, Ann Micaela. / Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol : advantage of enclosed filter. In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2017 ; Vol. 8, No. 5. pp. 635-645.

Bibtex

@article{4bdd87c068b648c3b5406ac9a0f5821e,
title = "Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter",
abstract = "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 {\textquoteleft}open{\textquoteright} filters. However, practical {\textquoteleft}enclosed{\textquoteright} 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 DNeasy{\textregistered} Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen). We measured total eDNA concentrations and Cq-values (cycles used for DNA quantification by qPCR) to target specific mtDNA 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.",
author = "Johan Spens and Evans, {Alice Ruth} and David Halfmaerten and Knudsen, {Steen Wilhelm} and Sengupta, {Mita Eva} and Sarah Mak and Sigsgaard, {Eva Egelyng} and Hellstr{\"o}m, {Ann Micaela}",
year = "2017",
month = may,
doi = "10.1111/2041-210X.12683",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "635--645",
journal = "Methods in Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2041-210X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol

T2 - advantage of enclosed filter

AU - Spens, Johan

AU - Evans, Alice Ruth

AU - Halfmaerten, David

AU - Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm

AU - Sengupta, Mita Eva

AU - Mak, Sarah

AU - Sigsgaard, Eva Egelyng

AU - Hellström, Ann Micaela

PY - 2017/5

Y1 - 2017/5

N2 - 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 DNeasy® Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen). We measured total eDNA concentrations and Cq-values (cycles used for DNA quantification by qPCR) to target specific mtDNA 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.

AB - 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 DNeasy® Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen). We measured total eDNA concentrations and Cq-values (cycles used for DNA quantification by qPCR) to target specific mtDNA 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.

U2 - 10.1111/2041-210X.12683

DO - 10.1111/2041-210X.12683

M3 - Journal article

VL - 8

SP - 635

EP - 645

JO - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2041-210X

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 173092085