2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10201-020-00634-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field storage of water samples affects measured environmental DNA concentration and detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After sample collection, bottles were sealed in a clean plastic bag, placed on ice in a cooler and filtered <2 hr after collection. During one collection, samples from Copper Slough were refrigerated and filtered the following morning (~12 hr after collection) but this delay does not affect the quantity of eDNA recovered (Curtis et al, 2021). For each sampling event, one field blank of distilled water per site was used to assess potential contamination in collection supplies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After sample collection, bottles were sealed in a clean plastic bag, placed on ice in a cooler and filtered <2 hr after collection. During one collection, samples from Copper Slough were refrigerated and filtered the following morning (~12 hr after collection) but this delay does not affect the quantity of eDNA recovered (Curtis et al, 2021). For each sampling event, one field blank of distilled water per site was used to assess potential contamination in collection supplies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the efficiency of these methods is still uncertain over longer time spans, although time represents a crucial factor in sample storage (Murphy et al, 2002;Tatangelo et al, 2014). Curtis et al, 2020 documented that water samples that were chilled and stored in the dark 48 hr before filtration showed no substantial decrease in eDNA detection or concentration of Corbicula fluminea with qPCR compared to samples that were immediately filtered. Using ddPCR, Wegleitner et al (2015) reported no significant differences in DNA concentrations of Neogobius melanostomus when filters were stored in Longmire's buffer over a period of 150 days and at room temperature before DNA extraction, compared to filters that were immediately extracted.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, studies have been conducted, investigating various methodological elements of eDNA measurement procedures, allowing to increase the reliability and robustness of these approaches. Collection methods including filter type, pore size, extraction protocols or sample storage strategies and their impacts on eDNA recovery, and ultimately detection sensitivity, have already been extensively explored (Curtis et al., 2020; Djurhuus et al., 2017; Hinlo et al., 2017; Mauvisseau et al., 2020; Spens et al., 2017; Wegleitner et al., 2015; Yamanaka et al., 2016). Currently, on‐site filtration followed by rapid DNA extraction is generally recommended to reduce DNA degradation and obtain optimal DNA concentrations of specific target organisms or taxonomic groups (Hinlo et al., 2017; Yamanaka et al., 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Currently, there is not a standardized eDNA sampling protocol for freshwater ecosystems, but the overall sequence of steps includes water collection, preservation, and laboratory analysis ( Ruppert, Kline & Rahman, 2019 ). Further, research suggests that sampling decisions made during water collection ( i.e., volume of water) and handling steps ( i.e., on-site vs. lab filtration) may influence detection ( Sepulveda et al, 2019 ; Curtis, Larson & David, 2021 ). Sales et al (2019) found that samples collected in containers, stored on ice, and then transported back to a lab for filtration yielded higher target species copy numbers than the use of a chemical preservation method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%