4.7 Article

Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 56-68

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12421

关键词

common carp; Cyprinus carpio; environmental DNA; invasive species; quantitative PCR

资金

  1. Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have examined capture and extraction methods for environmental DNA (eDNA) to identify techniques optimal for detection and quantification. In this study, precipitation, centrifugation and filtration eDNA capture methods and six commercially available DNA extraction kits were evaluated for their ability to detect and quantify common carp (Cyprinus carpio) mitochondrial DNA using quantitative PCR in a series of laboratory experiments. Filtration methods yielded the most carp eDNA, and a glass fibre (GF) filter performed better than a similar pore size polycarbonate (PC) filter. Smaller pore sized filters had higher regression slopes of biomass to eDNA, indicating that they were potentially more sensitive to changes in biomass. Comparison of DNA extraction kits showed that the MP Biomedicals FastDNA SPIN Kit yielded the most carp eDNA and was the most sensitive for detection purposes, despite minor inhibition. The MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit had the lowest coefficient of variation in extraction efficiency between lake and well water and had no detectable inhibition, making it most suitable for comparisons across aquatic environments. Of the methods tested, we recommend using a 1.5 mu m GF filter, followed by extraction with the MP Biomedicals FastDNA SPIN Kit for detection. For quantification of eDNA, filtration through a 0.2-0.6 mu m pore size PC filter, followed by extraction with MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit was optimal. These results are broadly applicable for laboratory studies on carps and potentially other cyprinids. The recommendations can also be used to inform choice of methodology for field studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据