Comparing eDNA and eRNA Sampling Methodologies From Pond Environments

ABSTRACTMolecular traces are increasingly being applied to assess the presence of species and communities. Studies on environmental DNA (eDNA) have, to a large extent, become common practice in species detection, but less studies have compared biodiversity estimations with the more temporary environmental RNA (eRNA). This study compares metabarcoding results from pond water obtained from both molecule types by sequencing the V4 region in the 18S rRNA marker. Water was collected from two depths, 20 and 80 cm, and filtered sequentially through two filter porosities, 0.45 and 0.22 μm. Each filter was cut in half before fixation in either 96% ETOH or RNAlater. The results showed no differences between the fixatives for either molecule. Overall, biodiversity estimates from eDNA significantly overperformed eRNA, likely due to higher concentrations of eDNA from terrestrial sources. Comparisons of the two depths showed variation for eDNA only, with increasing levels of biodiversity found at the upper water layer. Both filter pore sizes captured distinctive compositions of taxa, where about 30% of the diversity was uniquely identified from the second, finer filter. Taken together, these findings imply that the choice of molecular marker, depth and filter pore size affects the obtained biodiversity estimations in a pond.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

78

[1]

Adamo M. "Metabarcoding on Both Environmental DNA and RNA Highlights Differences Between Fungal Communities Sampled in Different Habitats" PLoS ONE (2021) 10.1371/journal.pone.0244682

[2]

Andrews S.2010. “FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data.” Available Online at:http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.

[3]

Andruszkiewicz Allen E. "Biomonitoring of Marine Vertebrates in Monterey Bay Using eDNA Metabarcoding" PLoS ONE (2017) 10.1371/journal.pone.0176343

[4]

10.1007/s10592‐024‐01619‐5

[5]

10.1371/journal.pone.0194489

[6]

10.1038/srep31519

[7]

10.1021/acs.est.3c02638

[8]

10.3897/ab.e68634

[9]

10.1186/s12898-019-0260-x

[10]

Diversity and ecology of protists revealed by metabarcoding

Fabien Burki, Miguel M. Sandin, Mahwash Jamy

Current Biology 10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.066

[11]

Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis

Benjamin J Callahan, Paul J McMurdie, Susan P Holmes

The ISME Journal 10.1038/ismej.2017.119

[12]

DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data

Benjamin J Callahan, Paul J McMurdie, Michael J Rosen et al.

Nature Methods 10.1038/nmeth.3869

[13]

Caswell T. A. M.Droettboom A.Lee et al.2021. “matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.4.0 (v3.4.0).“Zenodo.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4638398.

[14]

10.1007/s10750-007-9225-8

[15]

eDNAir: proof of concept that animal DNA can be collected from air sampling

Elizabeth L. Clare, Chloe K. Economou, Chris G. Faulkes et al.

PeerJ 10.7717/peerj.11030

[16]

10.1111/brv.12816

[17]

10.1111/cobi.12380

[18]

10.1002/edn3.178

[19]

10.1111/1755-0998.13855

[20]

10.5194/essd-13-4913-2021

[21]

Meta‐analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards

Julija Fediajevaite, Victoria Priestley, Richard Arnold et al.

Ecology and Evolution 10.1002/ece3.7382

[22]

10.1002/edn3.45

[23]

10.1016/s0007-1536(64)80078-4

[24]

10.4081/jlimnol.2023.2087

[25]

10.1038/s41598-022-22198-w

[26]

Improved biodiversity detection using a large-volume environmental DNA sampler with in situ filtration and implications for marine eDNA sampling strategies

Annette F. Govindarajan, Luke McCartin, Allan Adams et al.

Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research P... 10.1016/j.dsr.2022.103871

[27]

10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134239

[28]

10.1111/1755-0998.13951

[29]

10.1002/ecs2.3853

[30]

10.1111/conl.12447

[31]

10.1016/j.actao.2014.05.008

[32]

Warm temperature and alkaline conditions accelerate environmental RNA degradation

Toshiaki Jo, Kenji Tsuri, Takaya Hirohara et al.

Environmental DNA 10.1002/edn3.334

[33]

10.1002/edn3.437

[34]

10.7717/peerj.4521

[35]

10.1002/edn3.236

[36]

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162608

[37]

Krueger F.2021. “TrimGalore.”https://github.com/FelixKrueger/TrimGalore/releases.

[38]

10.1002/ece3.4213

[39]

10.7717/peerj.3347

[40]

UpSet: Visualization of Intersecting Sets

Alexander Lex, Nils Gehlenborg, Hendrik Strobelt et al.

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Gr... 10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346248

[41]

10.1098/rsos.160635

[42]

10.1111/1755-0998.13671

[43]

10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.014

[44]

10.1038/s41598-021-82205-4

[45]

10.1111/1462-2920.15669

[46]

10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107796

[47]

10.1038/s41598-022-23888-1

[48]

10.1371/journal.pone.0253104

[49]

10.1111/brv.12550

[50]

10.1111/1755-0998.12895

Showing 50 of 78 references

Metrics

5

Citations

78

References

Details

Published: Feb 01, 2025
Vol/Issue: 35(2)
License: View

Authors

K

Katarzyna Janik‐Superson

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland; Centre for Digital Biology and Biomedical Science–Biobank Lodz, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

D

Dawid Krawczyk

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

M

Monika Baranowska

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

K

Klaudyna Królikowska

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

M

Michał Seweryn

Centre for Digital Biology and Biomedical Science–Biobank Lodz, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

J

Jakub Lach

Centre for Digital Biology and Biomedical Science–Biobank Lodz, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

G

Grzegorz Tończyk

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

D

Dominik Strapagiel

Centre for Digital Biology and Biomedical Science–Biobank Lodz, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

K

Karolina Bącela‐Spychalska

Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection University of Lodz Lodz Poland

A

Annette Taugbøl

Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Lillehammer Norway

Funding

EEA Grants/Norway Grants

Cite This Article

Katarzyna Janik‐Superson, Dawid Krawczyk, Monika Baranowska, et al. (2025). Comparing eDNA and eRNA Sampling Methodologies From Pond Environments. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.70083

Comparing eDNA and eRNA Sampling Methodologies From Pond Environments

You May Also Like