10 research outputs found
Results of generalized linear mixed models analyzing the effects of biomass and the number of experimental days on the eDNA concentration in the aquarium experiments for <i>Hydrilla verticillata</i> and <i>Egeria densa</i>.
<p>The results of random effect were shown in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0156217#pone.0156217.s004" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>.</p
The location of 21 ponds in the field survey.
<p>The numbers correspond to the site IDs in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0156217#pone.0156217.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. Closed and open circles indicate that the presence of <i>Hydrilla verticillata</i> that was or was not reported in the past, respectively. The number in parentheses shows the eDNA concentration (copies L<sup>-1</sup>). This map was constructed using Fundamental Geospatial Data published by the Geographical Survey Institute, Japan.</p
The relationship between eDNA concentration and biomass, and the temporal changes of eDNA concentration in <i>Hydrilla verticillata</i> and <i>Egeria densa</i> under two-species conditions.
<p>The mean eDNA concentrations were calculated for each water bag (A, B). The error bars indicate ±1 standard deviation. Dotted lines (C,H), dashed lines (D, G), and solid lines (E, F) show the three conditions with low, middle, and high biomass, respectively. Six symbols in each graph indicate the six replicates for each condition.</p
The relation between eDNA concentration and biomass, and the temporal changes of eDNA concentration in <i>Hydrilla verticillata</i> and <i>Egeria densa</i> under single-species conditions.
<p>The means of eDNA concentration were calculated for each water bag (A, B). The error bars indicate ±1 standard deviation. Dotted lines (C, F), dashed lines (D, G), and solid lines (E, H) show the three conditions with low, middle, and high biomass, respectively. Six symbols in each graph indicate the six replicates for each condition. Note that biomass of some samples with a 4 cm-fragment is larger than those with two 4 cm-fragments.</p
Use of Droplet Digital PCR for Estimation of Fish Abundance and Biomass in Environmental DNA Surveys
<div><p>An environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis method has been recently developed to estimate the distribution of aquatic animals by quantifying the number of target DNA copies with quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). A new quantitative PCR technology, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), partitions PCR reactions into thousands of droplets and detects the amplification in each droplet, thereby allowing direct quantification of target DNA. We evaluated the quantification accuracy of qPCR and ddPCR to estimate species abundance and biomass by using eDNA in mesocosm experiments involving different numbers of common carp. We found that ddPCR quantified the concentration of carp eDNA along with carp abundance and biomass more accurately than qPCR, especially at low eDNA concentrations. In addition, errors in the analysis were smaller in ddPCR than in qPCR. Thus, ddPCR is better suited to measure eDNA concentration in water, and it provides more accurate results for the abundance and biomass of the target species than qPCR. We also found that the relationship between carp abundance and eDNA concentration was stronger than that between biomass and eDNA by using both ddPCR and qPCR; this suggests that abundance can be better estimated by the analysis of eDNA for species with fewer variations in body mass.</p></div
Relationships between eDNA concentrations of common carp in mesocosms that were measured using qPCR and ddPCR.
<p>Black, red, and green symbols indicate samples collected on days 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Solid red and dashed red lines indicate Type II regression and 95% CI, respectively.</p
Relationships between eDNA concentrations of common carp and their abundance in the mesocosm experiment.
<p>Black, red, and green symbols indicate samples collected on days 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Solid red and dashed red lines indicate Type II regression and 95% CI, respectively.</p
Relationships between eDNA concentrations of common carp and coefficients of variation (CV, %) measured using qPCR and ddPCR.
<p>Solid red and dashed red lines indicate Type II regression and 95% CI, respectively. Boxes in the box plot indicate median ± quartiles, and points indicate the outliers. The means of CVs were significantly different by Welch’s t-test (t = –2.98, p = 0.0047).</p
Relationships between eDNA concentrations of common carp and their biomass in the mesocosm experiment.
<p>Black, red, and green symbols indicate samples collected on days 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Solid red and dashed red lines indicate Type II regression and 95% CI, respectively.</p
Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Outperforms Real-Time PCR in the Detection of Environmental DNA from an Invasive Fish Species
Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been
used to investigate species distributions
in aquatic ecosystems. Most of these studies use real-time polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) to detect eDNA in water; however, PCR amplification
is often inhibited by the presence of organic and inorganic matter.
In droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), the sample is partitioned into thousands
of nanoliter droplets, and PCR inhibition may be reduced by the detection
of the end-point of PCR amplification in each droplet, independent
of the amplification efficiency. In addition, real-time PCR reagents
can affect PCR amplification and consequently alter detection rates.
We compared the effectiveness of ddPCR and real-time PCR using two
different PCR reagents for the detection of the eDNA from invasive
bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in ponds. We found that ddPCR had higher detection rates of bluegill
eDNA in pond water than real-time PCR with either of the PCR reagents,
especially at low DNA concentrations. Limits of DNA detection, which
were tested by spiking the bluegill DNA to DNA extracts from the ponds
containing natural inhibitors, found that ddPCR had higher detection
rate than real-time PCR. Our results suggest that ddPCR is more resistant
to the presence of PCR inhibitors in field samples than real-time
PCR. Thus, ddPCR outperforms real-time PCR methods for detecting eDNA
to document species distributions in natural habitats, especially
in habitats with high concentrations of PCR inhibitors