Water Pre-filtration Methods to Improve Environmental DNA Detection by Real-time PCR and Metabarcoding

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2021 May 7

PMID 33961651

Citations 6

Authors

Kazuto Takasaki

Hiroki Aihara

Takanobu Imanaka

Takahiro Matsudaira

Keita Tsukahara

Atsuko Usui

Sora Osaki

Hideyuki Doi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a novel approach for biomonitoring and has been mostly used in clear water. It is difficult to detect eDNA in turbid water as filter clogging occurs, and environmental samples contain various substances that inhibit the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and affect the accuracy of eDNA analysis. Therefore, we applied a pre-filtration method to better detect the fish species (particularly pale chub, Opsariichthys platypus) present in a water body by measuring eDNA in environmental samples containing PCR inhibitors. Upon conducting 12S rRNA metabarcoding analysis (MiFish), we found that pre-filtration did not affect the number or identities of fish species detected in our samples, but pre-filtration through pore sizes resulted in significantly reduced variance among replicate samples. Additionally, PCR amplification was improved by the pre-filtration of environmental samples containing PCR inhibitors such as humic substances. Although this study may appear to be a conservative and ancillary experiment, pre-filtration is a simple technique that can not only improve the physical properties of water, such as turbidity, but also the quality of eDNA biomonitoring.

Citing Articles

Advances in environmental DNA monitoring: standardization, automation, and emerging technologies in aquatic ecosystems.

Lu S, Zeng H, Xiong F, Yao M, He S Sci China Life Sci. 2024; 67(7):1368-1384.

PMID: 38512561 DOI: 10.1007/s11427-023-2493-5.

Insights in Pharmaceutical Pollution: The Prospective Role of eDNA Metabarcoding.

Papaioannou C, Geladakis G, Kommata V, Batargias C, Lagoumintzis G Toxics. 2023; 11(11).

PMID: 37999555 PMC: 10675236. DOI: 10.3390/toxics11110903.

Capturing marine microbiomes and environmental DNA: A field sampling guide.

Patin N, Goodwin K Front Microbiol. 2023; 13:1026596.

PMID: 36713215 PMC: 9877356. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1026596.

Assessing the breeding phenology of a threatened frog species using eDNA and automatic acoustic monitoring.

Chen Y, Tournayre O, Tian H, Lougheed S PeerJ. 2023; 11:e14679.

PMID: 36710869 PMC: 9879156. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14679.

Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding.

Matsuoka S, Sugiyama Y, Nagano M, Doi H PeerJ. 2022; 10:e13477.

PMID: 35651749 PMC: 9150701. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13477.

References

Peters L, Spatharis S, Dario M, Dwyer T, Roca I, Kintner A . Environmental DNA: A New Low-Cost Monitoring Tool for Pathogens in Salmonid Aquaculture. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9:3009. PMC: 6292926. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03009. View

Stoeckle B, Beggel S, Cerwenka A, Motivans E, Kuehn R, Geist J . A systematic approach to evaluate the influence of environmental conditions on eDNA detection success in aquatic ecosystems. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189119. PMC: 5722286. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189119. View

Doi H, Katano I, Sakata Y, Souma R, Kosuge T, Nagano M . Detection of an endangered aquatic heteropteran using environmental DNA in a wetland ecosystem. R Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4(7):170568. PMC: 5541572. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170568. View

Tsai Y, Olson B . Rapid method for separation of bacterial DNA from humic substances in sediments for polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992; 58(7):2292-5. PMC: 195770. DOI: 10.1128/aem.58.7.2292-2295.1992. View

Sato H, Sogo Y, Doi H, Yamanaka H . Usefulness and limitations of sample pooling for environmental DNA metabarcoding of freshwater fish communities. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):14860. PMC: 5665893. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14978-6. View

Kizuka T, Akasaka M, Kadoya T, Takamura N . Visibility from roads predict the distribution of invasive fishes in agricultural ponds. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e99709. PMC: 4055726. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099709. View

Lakay F, Botha A, Prior B . Comparative analysis of environmental DNA extraction and purification methods from different humic acid-rich soils. J Appl Microbiol. 2006; 102(1):265-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03052.x. View

Iida Y, Salomon M, Hata K, Tran K, Ohe S, Griffiths C . Predominance of triple wild-type and IGF2R mutations in mucosal melanomas. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1):1054. PMC: 6206730. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4977-2. View

Miyazaki Y, Teramura A, Senou H . Biodiversity data mining from Argus-eyed citizens: the first illegal introduction record of Lepomis macrochirus macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819 in Japan based on Twitter information. Zookeys. 2016; (569):123-33. PMC: 4829683. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.569.7577. View

10.

Sinigalliano C, Fleisher J, Gidley M, Solo-Gabriele H, Shibata T, Plano L . Traditional and molecular analyses for fecal indicator bacteria in non-point source subtropical recreational marine waters. Water Res. 2010; 44(13):3763-72. PMC: 2947316. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.04.026. View

11.

Schlegel M, Queloz V, Sieber T . The Endophytic Mycobiome of European Ash and Sycamore Maple Leaves - Geographic Patterns, Host Specificity and Influence of Ash Dieback. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9:2345. PMC: 6207852. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02345. View

12.

Kitanishi S, Onikura N, Mukai T . A simple SNP genotyping method reveals extreme invasions of non-native haplotypes in pale chub Opsariichthys platypus, a common cyprinid fish in Japan. PLoS One. 2018; 13(1):e0191731. PMC: 5779690. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191731. View

13.

Muha T, Robinson C, Garcia de Leaniz C, Consuegra S . An optimised eDNA protocol for detecting fish in lentic and lotic freshwaters using a small water volume. PLoS One. 2019; 14(7):e0219218. PMC: 6636732. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219218. View

14.

Ficetola G, Taberlet P, Coissac E . How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding?. Mol Ecol Resour. 2016; 16(3):604-7. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12508. View

15.

Kreader C . Relief of amplification inhibition in PCR with bovine serum albumin or T4 gene 32 protein. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996; 62(3):1102-6. PMC: 167874. DOI: 10.1128/aem.62.3.1102-1106.1996. View

16.

Doi H, Fukaya K, Oka S, Sato K, Kondoh M, Miya M . Evaluation of detection probabilities at the water-filtering and initial PCR steps in environmental DNA metabarcoding using a multispecies site occupancy model. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):3581. PMC: 6401178. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40233-1. View

17.

Zulkefli N, Kim K, Hwang S . Effects of Microbial Activity and Environmental Parameters on the Degradation of Extracellular Environmental DNA from a Eutrophic Lake. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(18). PMC: 6765872. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16183339. View

18.

Hunter M, Ferrante J, Meigs-Friend G, Ulmer A . Improving eDNA yield and inhibitor reduction through increased water volumes and multi-filter isolation techniques. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):5259. PMC: 6437164. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40977-w. View

19.

Kakuda A, Doi H, Souma R, Nagano M, Minamoto T, Katano I . Environmental DNA detection and quantification of invasive red-eared sliders, , in ponds and the influence of water quality. PeerJ. 2019; 7:e8155. PMC: 6901006. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8155. View

20.

Eyre D, Golubchik T, Gordon N, Bowden R, Piazza P, Batty E . A pilot study of rapid benchtop sequencing of Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile for outbreak detection and surveillance. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(3). PMC: 3378946. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001124. View