Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 19828, 2022 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36400924

ABSTRACT

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is widely used for species analysis, while the use of environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding is more limited. We conducted comparative eDNA/eRNA metabarcoding of the algae and arthropods (aquatic insects) in water samples from Naka River, Japan, to evaluate their potential for biological monitoring and water quality assessment. Both methods detected various algae and arthropod species; however, their compositions were remarkably different from those in traditional field surveys (TFSs), indicating low sensitivity. For algae, the species composition derived from eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding was equivalent. While TFSs focus on attached algae, metabarcoding analysis theoretically detects both planktonic and attached algae. A recently expanded genomic database for aquatic insects significantly contributed to the sensitivity and positive predictivity for arthropods. While the sensitivity of eRNA was lower than that of eDNA, the positive predictivity of eRNA was higher. The eRNA of terrestrial arthropods indicated extremely high or low read numbers when compared with eDNA, suggesting that eRNA could be an effective indicator of false positives. Arthropod and algae eDNA/eRNA metabarcoding analysis enabled water quality estimates from TFSs. The eRNA of algae and arthropods could thus be used to evaluate biodiversity and water quality and provide insights from ecological surveys.


Subject(s)
Arthropods , DNA, Environmental , Animals , Rivers , Water Quality , DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic/methods , Arthropods/genetics , RNA/genetics , Environmental Monitoring/methods , DNA, Environmental/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...