Identifying error and accurately interpreting environmental DNA metabarcoding results: A case study to detect vertebrates at arid zone waterholes

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys enable rapid, noninvasive identification of taxa from trace samples with wide‐ranging applications from characterizing local biodiversity to identifying food‐web interactions. However, the technique is prone to error from two major sources: (a) contamination through foreign DNA entering the workflow, and (b) misidentification of DNA within the workflow. Both types of error have the potential to obscure true taxon presence or to increase taxonomic richness by incorrectly identifying taxa as present at sample sites, but multiple error sources can remain unaccounted for in metabarcoding studies. Here, we use data from an eDNA metabarcoding study designed to detect vertebrate species at waterholes in Australia's arid zone to illustrate where and how in the workflow errors can arise, and how to mitigate those errors. We detected the DNA of 36 taxa spanning 34 families, 19 orders and five vertebrate classes in water samples from waterholes, demonstrating the potential for eDNA metabarcoding surveys to provide rapid, noninvasive detection in remote locations, and to widely sample taxonomic diversity from aquatic through to terrestrial taxa. However, we initially identified 152 taxa in the samples, meaning there were many false positive detections. We identified the sources of these errors, allowing us to design a stepwise process to detect and remove error, and provide a template to minimize similar errors that are likely to arise in other metabarcoding studies. Our findings suggest eDNA metabarcoding surveys need to be carefully conducted and screened for errors to ensure their accuracy.

The utility of environmental DNA from sediment and water samples for recovery of observed plant and animal species from four Mojave Desert springs

“…Future studies should focus on developing, testing, comparing, and improving molecular markers for plants. Specifically, to select for markers that detect spring dependent plant communities (Fazekas et al., 2009) as well as animals (e.g., 16S, Smith et al., 2020; 12S, Furlan et al., 2020).…”

Multispecies site occupancy modeling and study design for spatially replicated environmental DNA metabarcoding

“…In eDNA metabarcoding, false positives can occur because of various technical factors, including contamination, amplification or sequencing errors, or tag switching (Zhan & MacIsaac 2015, Furlan et al 2020. As unmodeled false positives can cause a significant bias in the inference of site occupancy (Royle & Link 2006), adequate precautions must be taken in applying the proposed model to an eDNA metabarcoding study.…”

“…In eDNA metabarcoding, false positives can occur because of various technical factors, including contamination, amplification or sequencing errors, or tag switching (Zhan & MacIsaac 2015, Furlan et al . 2020).…”

eDNA metabarcoding outperforms traditional fisheries sampling and reveals fine-scale heterogeneity in a temperate freshwater lake

“…The low contamination in our laboratory positive and negative controls also verify that contamination from the laboratory, as well as cross contamination among plates and wells, was minimal. Surprisingly few studies report sources of contamination or when it occurred during the process, but Harper et al (2019) found that most contamination occurred during sampling and PCR, and Furlan et al (2020) found that some contamination occurred through all stages of sampling and processing, but mostly during PCR. Because we subtracted the maximum number of reads in controls from all read counts in associated samples, we were confident that the remaining reads were true detections.…”