Comparising DNA extraction from environmental DNA samples to reveal the diversity of freshwater metazoans

  • Donan Satria Yudha Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada
    (ID) http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4758-3314
  • Dwi Sendi Priyono Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada
    (ID)
  • Rahma Izzati Departement Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology
  • Aulia Sigit Ardianto
  • Ananto Puradi
  • Nainggolan Nainggolan

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring has gained popularity in the last decade as one of the most sensitive and cost-effective monitoring methods. However, information regarding the type of DNA extraction used still needs to be studied, especially for metazoan in fresh water samples. This parameter is also critical for a project's experimental design. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two extraction kits between DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen) silica column-based and ZymoBIOMICS 96 MagBead DNA Kit (Zymo Research) magnetic bead-based. The quantity of DNA extracts was measured using a spectrophotometer at 260/280 nm. Following that, we continued the metazoa PCR procedure. Qiagen has higher mean value of DNA concentration (88.48 ng/μl) than Zymo (20.89 ng/μl). For DNA purity, Zymo has higher mean value of DNA purity (1.84) than the Qiagen (1.59). However, both kits were equally successful in amplifying universal metazoan primers. We recommend that the use of these types of kits appears to be the least important consideration. Other important factors that may have a major impact on DNA extraction such as water volume, membrane type, sampling strategy need to be investigated in freshwater samples.

Author Biographies

Donan Satria Yudha, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Departement Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology, Lecturer
Dwi Sendi Priyono, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Departement Tropical Biology, Faculty of Biology, Lecturer

References

Bang C, Dagan T, Deines P, Dubilier N, Duschl WJ, Fraune S, Hentschel U, Hirt H, Hülter N, Lachnit T, Picazo D, Pita L, Pogoreutz C, Rädecker N, Saad MM, Schmitz RA, Schulenburg H, Voolstra CR, Bosch TCG. 2018. Metaorganisms in extreme environments: do microbes play a role in organismal adaptation?. Zoology. vol 127: 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2018.02.004.

Beng KC, Corlett RT. 2020. Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects. Biodiversity and Conservation. vol 29(7): 2089–2121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01980-0.

Bitting AL, Bordelon H, Baglia ML, Davis KM, Creecy AE, Short PA, Albert LE, Karhade AV, Wright DW, Haselton FR, Adams NM. 2016. Automated device for asynchronous extraction of RNA, DNA, or protein biomarkers from surrogate patient samples. Journal of Laboratory Automation. vol 21(6): 732–742. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2211068215596139.

Bordelon H, Russ PK, Wright DW, Haselton FR. 2013. A magnetic bead-based method for concentrating DNA from human urine for downstream detection. PloS One. vol 8(7): 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068369.

Bruland KW, Rue EL, Smith GJ. 2001. Iron and macronutrients in California coastal upwelling regimes: Implications for diatom blooms. Limnology and Oceanography. vol 46(7): 1661–1674. doi: https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2001.46.7.1661.

Bylemans J, Gleeson DM, Duncan RP, Hardy CM, Furlan EM. 2019. A performance evaluation of targeted eDNA and eDNA metabarcoding analyses for freshwater fishes. Environmental DNA. vol 1(4): 402–414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.41.

Cantera I, Cilleros K, Valentini A, Cerdan A, Dejean T, Iribar A, Taberlet P, Vigouroux R, Brosse S. 2019. Optimizing environmental DNA sampling effort for fish inventories in tropical streams and rivers. Scientific Reports. vol 9(1): 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39399-5.

Carraro L, Stauffer JB, Altermatt F. 2021. How to design optimal eDNA sampling strategies for biomonitoring in river networks. Environmental DNA. vol 3(1): 157–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.137.

Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, Seymour M, Lacoursière‐Roussel A, Altermatt F, Creer S, Bista I, Lodge DM, De Vere N, Pfrender ME, Bernatchez L. 2017. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology. vol 26(21): 5872–5895. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350.

Diefenbach RJ, Lee JH, Kefford RF, Rizos H. 2018. Evaluation of commercial kits for purification of circulating free DNA. Cancer Genetics. vol 228–229: 21–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2018.08.005.

Djurhuus A, Port J, Closek CJ, Yamahara KM, Romero-Maraccini O, Walz KR, Goldsmith DB, Michisaki R, Breitbart M, Boehm AB, Chavez FP. 2017. Evaluation of filtration and DNA extraction methods for environmental DNA biodiversity assessments across multiple trophic levels. Frontiers in Marine Science. vol 4: 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00314.

Elbrecht V, Leese F. 2017. Validation and development of COI metabarcoding primers for freshwater macroinvertebrate bioassessment. Frontiers in Environmental Science. vol 5: 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00011.

Ficetola GF, Manenti R, Taberlet P. 2019. Environmental DNA and metabarcoding for the study of amphibians and reptiles: species distribution, the microbiome, and much more. Amphibia Reptilia. vol 40(2): 129–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191194.

Grattepanche JD, Breton E, Brylinski JM, Lecuyer E, Christaki U. 2011. Succession of primary producers and micrograzers in a coastal ecosystem dominated by Phaeocystis globosa blooms. Journal of Plankton Research. vol 33(1): 37–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbq097.

Husakova M, Kralik P, Babak V, Slana I. 2020. Efficiency of DNA isolation methods based on silica columns and magnetic separation tested for the detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. Paratuberculosis in milk and faeces. Materials. vol 13(22): 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13225112.

Huver JR, Koprivnikar J, Johnson PT, Whyard S. 2015. Development and application of an eDNA method to detect and quantify a pathogenic parasite in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications. vol 25(4): 991–1002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1530.1.

Katevatis C, Fan A, Klapperich CM. 2017. Low concentration DNA extraction and recovery using a silica solid phase. PLoS One. vol 12(5): 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176848.

Lacoursière‐Roussel A, Rosabal M, Bernatchez L. 2016. Estimating fish abundance and biomass from eDNA concentrations: variability among capture methods and environmental conditions. Molecular Ecology Resources. vol 16(6): 1401–1414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12522.

Muha TP, Robinson CV, de Leaniz CG, Consuegra S. 2019. An optimised eDNA protocol for detecting fish in lentic and lotic freshwaters using a small water volume. PloS One. vol 14(7): 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219218.

Olson ZH, Briggler JT, Williams RN. 2012. An eDNA approach to detect eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis) using samples of water. Wildlife Research. vol 39(7): 629–636. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12114.

Pawlowski J, Kelly-Quinn M, Altermatt F, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Beja P, Boggero A, Borja A, Bouchez A, Cordier T, Domaizon I, Feioh MJ, Filipe AF, Fornaroli R, Graf W, Herderk J, der Hoorn B, Jones JI, Sagova-Mareckovan M, Moritz C, Barquín J, Piggott JJ, Pinna M, Rimet F, Rinkevichs B, Sousa-Santos C, Specchia V, Trobajo R, Vasselon V, Vitecek S, Zimmerman J, Weigand A, Leese F, Kahlert M. 2018. The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e) DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment. vol 637–638: 1295–1310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.002.

Piaggio AJ, Engeman RM, Hopken MW, Humphrey JS, Keacher KL, Bruce WE, Avery ML. 2014. Detecting an elusive invasive species: a diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources. vol 14(2): 374–380. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12180.

Sasso LA, Johnston IH, Zheng M, Gupte RK, Ündar A, Zahn JD. 2012. Automated microfluidic processing platform for multiplexed magnetic bead immunoassays. Microfluidics and Nanofluidics. vol 13: 603–612. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-012-0980-0.

Shahraki AH, Chaganti SR, Heath D. 2019. Assessing high-throughput environmental DNA extraction methods for meta-barcode characterization of aquatic microbial communities. Journal of Water and Health. vol 17(1): 37–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2018.108.

Shields MJ, Hahn KR, Janzen TW, Goji N, Thomas MC. Bin Kingombe CI, Paquet C, Kell AJ, Amoako KK. 2012. Immunomagnetic capture of Bacillus anthracis spores from food. Journal of Food Protection. vol 75: 1243–1248. doi: https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-048.

Staley ZR, Chuong JD, Hill SJ, Grabuski J, Shokralla S, Hajibabaei M, Edge TA. 2018. Fecal source tracking and eDNA profiling in an urban creek following an extreme rain event. Scientific Reports. vol 8(1): 1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32680-z.

Stat M, Huggett MJ, Bernasconi R, DiBattista JD, Berry TE, Newman SJ, Harvey ES, Bunce M. 2017. Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment. Scientific Reports. vol 7(1): 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12501-5.

Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF, Bellemain E, Besnard A, Coissac E, Boyer F, Gaboriaud C, Jean P, Poulet N, Roset N, Copp GH, Geniez P, Pont D, Argillier C, Baudoin JM, Peroux T, Crivelli AJ, Olivier A, Acqueberge M, Le Brun M, Møller PR, Willerslev E, Dejean T. 2016. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology. vol 25(4): 929–942. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428.

Walker DM, Leys JE, Dunham KE, Oliver JC, Schiller EE, Stephenson KS, Kimrey JT, Wooten J, Rogers MW. 2017. Methodological considerations for detection of terrestrial small‐body salamander eDNA and implications for biodiversity conservation. Molecular Ecology Resources. vol 17(6): 1223–1230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12667.

Williams KE, Huyvaert KP, Piaggio AJ. 2016. No filters, no fridges: a method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis. BMC Research Notes. vol 9(1): 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2104-5.

Wood SA, Pochon X, Laroche O, von Ammon U, Adamson J, Zaiko A. 2019. A comparison of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR), quantitative PCR and metabarcoding for species‐specific detection in environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources. vol 19(6): 1407–1419. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13055.

Yudha, DS, Eprilurahman R, Jayanto H, Wiryawan IF. 2016. Keanekaragaman jenis kadal dan ular (Squamata: Reptilia) di sepanjang Sungai Code Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Biota: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu-ilmu Hayati. vol 1(1): 31–38. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.24002/biota.v1i1.710.

Yudha DS, Akmal WR, Eprilurahman R. 2019. Monitoring anurans diversity along Code River, Province of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Biogenesis: Jurnal Ilmiah Biologi. vol 7(2): 132–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.24252/bio.v7i2.10174.

Zeppilli D, Leduc D, Fontanier C, Fontaneto D, Fuchs S, Gooday AJ, Goineau A, Ingels J, Ivanenko VN, Kristensen RM, Neves RC, Sanchez N, Sandulli R, Sarrazin J, Sørensen MV, Tasiemski A, Vanreusel A, Autret M, Bourdonnay L, Claireaux M, Coquillé V, De Wever L, Rachel D, Marchant J, Toomey L, Fernandes D. 2018. Characteristics of meiofauna in extreme marine ecosystems: a review. Marine Biodiversity. vol 48(1): 35–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-017-0815-z.

Published
2021-12-30
Section
Research Articles
Abstract viewed = 94 times