Abstract
Analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) through non-invasive sampling continues to gain popularity in the surveillance of organisms. Methodological improvement to ensure maximum DNA recovery from the samples would benefit future studies. We investigated the effects of DNA extraction methods and filter preservation methods on eDNA yield by analyzing field-collected water samples for eDNA of the Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis). We tested whether the use of bead beating during DNA extraction, which likely facilitates removal of cells trapped on filters, would increase eDNA yield. We also examined whether preservation of filters in ethanol or storage at − 20 °C before extraction would yield more eDNA. Bead beating and preservation at − 20 °C significantly increased the estimated amount of eDNA.
References
Deiner K, Walser JC, Mächler E, Altermatt F (2015) Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA. Biol Conserv 183:53–63
Goldberg CS, Pilliod DS, Arkle RS, Waits LP (2011) Molecular detection of vertebrates in stream water: a demonstration using Rocky Mountain Tailed Frogs and Idaho Giant Salamanders. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22746
Goldberg CS, Turner CR, Deiner K, Klymus KE, Thomsen PF, Murphy MA, Spear SF, McKee A, Oyler-McCance SJ, Cornman RS, Laramie MB, Mahon AR, Lance RF, Pilliod DS, Strickler KM, Waits LP, Fremier AK, Takahara T, Herder JE, Taberlet P (2016) Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol Evol 7(11):1299–1307
Hinlo R, Gleeson D, Lintermans M, Furlan E (2017) Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. PLoS One 12(6):e0179251
Li J, Lawson Handley L-J, Read DS, Hanfling B (2018) The effect of filtration method on the efficiency of environmnetak DNA capture and quanitifcation via metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 18:1102–1114
Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JR, Gough KC (2014) The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA—a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol 51(5):1450–1459
Shokralla S, Singer GA, Hajibabaei M (2010) Direct PCR amplification and sequencing of specimens’ DNA from preservative ethanol. Biotechniques 48(3):233
Spear SF, Groves JD, Williams LA, Waits LP (2015) Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program. Biol Conserv 183:38–45
Spens J, Evans AR, Halfmaerten D, Knudsen SW, Sengupta ME, Mak SS, Sigsgaard EE, Hellström M (2017) Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods Ecol Evol 8(5):635–645
Takahashi MK, Meyer MJ, Mcphee C, Gaston JR, Venesky MD, Case BF (2018) Seasonal and diel signature of eastern hellbender environmental DNA. J Wildl Manag 82(1):217–225
Yeates C, Gillings MR, Davison AD, Altavilla N, Veal DA (1998) Methods for microbial DNA extraction from soil for PCR amplification. Biol Proced Online 1(1):40
Yu Z, Morrison M (2004) Improved extraction of PCR-quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques 36(5):808–813
Acknowledgements
We thank Brianna Bjordahl, Lindsey Trusal, and Nicole Fry for field and lab assistance for this project. Amy McMillan kindly provided hellbender DNA for the DNA standards. Funding and resources were provided by the Department of Biology at Bucknell University. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments during the review process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hundermark, E.L., Takahashi, M.K. Improving the yield of environmental DNA from filtered aquatic samples. Conservation Genet Resour 12, 49–51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-018-1067-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-018-1067-3