Cargando…

Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a rapid, cost‐effective, non‐invasive biodiversity monitoring tool which utilises DNA left behind in the environment by organisms for species detection. The method is used as a species‐specific survey tool for rare or invasive species across a broad range of ecos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harper, Lynsey R., Lawson Handley, Lori, Hahn, Christoph, Boonham, Neil, Rees, Helen C., Gough, Kevin C., Lewis, Erin, Adams, Ian P., Brotherton, Peter, Phillips, Susanna, Hänfling, Bernd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4013
_version_ 1783336001379237888
author Harper, Lynsey R.
Lawson Handley, Lori
Hahn, Christoph
Boonham, Neil
Rees, Helen C.
Gough, Kevin C.
Lewis, Erin
Adams, Ian P.
Brotherton, Peter
Phillips, Susanna
Hänfling, Bernd
author_facet Harper, Lynsey R.
Lawson Handley, Lori
Hahn, Christoph
Boonham, Neil
Rees, Helen C.
Gough, Kevin C.
Lewis, Erin
Adams, Ian P.
Brotherton, Peter
Phillips, Susanna
Hänfling, Bernd
author_sort Harper, Lynsey R.
collection PubMed
description Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a rapid, cost‐effective, non‐invasive biodiversity monitoring tool which utilises DNA left behind in the environment by organisms for species detection. The method is used as a species‐specific survey tool for rare or invasive species across a broad range of ecosystems. Recently, eDNA and “metabarcoding” have been combined to describe whole communities rather than focusing on single target species. However, whether metabarcoding is as sensitive as targeted approaches for rare species detection remains to be evaluated. The great crested newt Triturus cristatus is a flagship pond species of international conservation concern and the first UK species to be routinely monitored using eDNA. We evaluate whether eDNA metabarcoding has comparable sensitivity to targeted real‐time quantitative PCR (qPCR) for T. cristatus detection. Extracted eDNA samples (N = 532) were screened for T. cristatus by qPCR and analysed for all vertebrate species using high‐throughput sequencing technology. With qPCR and a detection threshold of 1 of 12 positive qPCR replicates, newts were detected in 50% of ponds. Detection decreased to 32% when the threshold was increased to 4 of 12 positive qPCR replicates. With metabarcoding, newts were detected in 34% of ponds without a detection threshold, and in 28% of ponds when a threshold (0.028%) was applied. Therefore, qPCR provided greater detection than metabarcoding but metabarcoding detection with no threshold was equivalent to qPCR with a stringent detection threshold. The proportion of T. cristatus sequences in each sample was positively associated with the number of positive qPCR replicates (qPCR score) suggesting eDNA metabarcoding may be indicative of eDNA concentration. eDNA metabarcoding holds enormous potential for holistic biodiversity assessment and routine freshwater monitoring. We advocate this community approach to freshwater monitoring to guide management and conservation, whereby entire communities can be initially surveyed to best inform use of funding and time for species‐specific surveys.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6024127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60241272018-07-09 Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) Harper, Lynsey R. Lawson Handley, Lori Hahn, Christoph Boonham, Neil Rees, Helen C. Gough, Kevin C. Lewis, Erin Adams, Ian P. Brotherton, Peter Phillips, Susanna Hänfling, Bernd Ecol Evol Original Research Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a rapid, cost‐effective, non‐invasive biodiversity monitoring tool which utilises DNA left behind in the environment by organisms for species detection. The method is used as a species‐specific survey tool for rare or invasive species across a broad range of ecosystems. Recently, eDNA and “metabarcoding” have been combined to describe whole communities rather than focusing on single target species. However, whether metabarcoding is as sensitive as targeted approaches for rare species detection remains to be evaluated. The great crested newt Triturus cristatus is a flagship pond species of international conservation concern and the first UK species to be routinely monitored using eDNA. We evaluate whether eDNA metabarcoding has comparable sensitivity to targeted real‐time quantitative PCR (qPCR) for T. cristatus detection. Extracted eDNA samples (N = 532) were screened for T. cristatus by qPCR and analysed for all vertebrate species using high‐throughput sequencing technology. With qPCR and a detection threshold of 1 of 12 positive qPCR replicates, newts were detected in 50% of ponds. Detection decreased to 32% when the threshold was increased to 4 of 12 positive qPCR replicates. With metabarcoding, newts were detected in 34% of ponds without a detection threshold, and in 28% of ponds when a threshold (0.028%) was applied. Therefore, qPCR provided greater detection than metabarcoding but metabarcoding detection with no threshold was equivalent to qPCR with a stringent detection threshold. The proportion of T. cristatus sequences in each sample was positively associated with the number of positive qPCR replicates (qPCR score) suggesting eDNA metabarcoding may be indicative of eDNA concentration. eDNA metabarcoding holds enormous potential for holistic biodiversity assessment and routine freshwater monitoring. We advocate this community approach to freshwater monitoring to guide management and conservation, whereby entire communities can be initially surveyed to best inform use of funding and time for species‐specific surveys. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6024127/ /pubmed/29988445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4013 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Harper, Lynsey R.
Lawson Handley, Lori
Hahn, Christoph
Boonham, Neil
Rees, Helen C.
Gough, Kevin C.
Lewis, Erin
Adams, Ian P.
Brotherton, Peter
Phillips, Susanna
Hänfling, Bernd
Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title_full Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title_fullStr Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title_full_unstemmed Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title_short Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
title_sort needle in a haystack? a comparison of edna metabarcoding and targeted qpcr for detection of the great crested newt (triturus cristatus)
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4013
work_keys_str_mv AT harperlynseyr needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT lawsonhandleylori needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT hahnchristoph needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT boonhamneil needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT reeshelenc needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT goughkevinc needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT lewiserin needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT adamsianp needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT brothertonpeter needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT phillipssusanna needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus
AT hanflingbernd needleinahaystackacomparisonofednametabarcodingandtargetedqpcrfordetectionofthegreatcrestednewttrituruscristatus