1
|
Takahashi M, Saccò M, Kestel JH, Nester G, Campbell MA, van der Heyde M, Heydenrych MJ, Juszkiewicz DJ, Nevill P, Dawkins KL, Bessey C, Fernandes K, Miller H, Power M, Mousavi-Derazmahalleh M, Newton JP, White NE, Richards ZT, Allentoft ME. Aquatic environmental DNA: A review of the macro-organismal biomonitoring revolution. Sci Total Environ 2023; 873:162322. [PMID: 36801404 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162322] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2022] [Revised: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is the fastest growing biomonitoring tool fuelled by two key features: time efficiency and sensitivity. Technological advancements allow rapid biodiversity detection at both species and community levels with increasing accuracy. Concurrently, there has been a global demand to standardise eDNA methods, but this is only possible with an in-depth overview of the technological advancements and a discussion of the pros and cons of available methods. We therefore conducted a systematic literature review of 407 peer-reviewed papers on aquatic eDNA published between 2012 and 2021. We observed a gradual increase in the annual number of publications from four (2012) to 28 (2018), followed by a rapid growth to 124 publications in 2021. This was mirrored by a tremendous diversification of methods in all aspects of the eDNA workflow. For example, in 2012 only freezing was applied to preserve filter samples, whereas we recorded 12 different preservation methods in the 2021 literature. Despite an ongoing standardisation debate in the eDNA community, the field is seemingly moving fast in the opposite direction and we discuss the reasons and implications. Moreover, by compiling the largest PCR-primer database to date, we provide information on 522 and 141 published species-specific and metabarcoding primers targeting a wide range of aquatic organisms. This works as a user-friendly 'distillation' of primer information that was hitherto scattered across hundreds of papers, but the list also reflects which taxa are commonly studied with eDNA technology in aquatic environments such as fish and amphibians, and reveals that groups such as corals, plankton and algae are under-studied. Efforts to improve sampling and extraction methods, primer specificity and reference databases are crucial to capture these ecologically important taxa in future eDNA biomonitoring surveys. In a rapidly diversifying field, this review synthetises aquatic eDNA procedures and can guide eDNA users towards best practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miwa Takahashi
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Indian Oceans Marine Research Centre, Environomics Future Science Platform, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
| | - Mattia Saccò
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.
| | - Joshua H Kestel
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Georgia Nester
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Matthew A Campbell
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Mieke van der Heyde
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Matthew J Heydenrych
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia; Jarman Laboratory, Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - David J Juszkiewicz
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Paul Nevill
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Kathryn L Dawkins
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Cindy Bessey
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Indian Oceans Marine Research Centre, Oceans and Atmosphere, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Kristen Fernandes
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Haylea Miller
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Indian Oceans Marine Research Centre, Environomics Future Science Platform, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Matthew Power
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Mahsa Mousavi-Derazmahalleh
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Joshua P Newton
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Nicole E White
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Zoe T Richards
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
| | - Morten E Allentoft
- Trace and Environmental DNA (TrEnD) Lab, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia; Lundbeck Foundation GeoGenetics Centre, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
The age, sex, and sexual maturity of individual animals are key parameters in assessing wild populations and informing conservation management strategies. These parameters represent the reproductive potential of a population and can indicate recovery rates or vulnerabilities. Natural populations of wild animals are difficult to study; logistically, economically, and due to the impacts of invasive biomonitoring. Genetic and epigenetic analyses offer a low impact, low cost, and information-rich alternative. As epigenetic mechanisms are intrinsically linked with both biological aging and reproductive processes, DNA methylation can be used as a suitable biomarker for population biology study. This review assesses published research utilizing DNA methylation analysis in relation to three key population parameters: age, sex, and sexual maturity. We review studies on wild vertebrates that investigate epigenetic age relationships, with successful age estimation assays designed for mammals, birds, and fish. For both determination of sex and identification of sexual maturity, very little has been explored regarding DNA methylation-based assays. Related research, however, confirms the links between DNA methylation and these processes. Future development of age estimation assays for underrepresented and key conservation taxa is suggested, as is the experimental development and design of DNA methylation-based assays for both sex and sexual maturity identification, further expanding the genomics toolkit for population biology studies.
Collapse
|