Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring
- PMID: 32966665
- DOI: 10.1111/mec.15643
Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring
Abstract
The last decade brought a spectacular development of so-called environmental (e)DNA studies. In general, "environmental DNA" is defined as DNA isolated from environmental samples, in contrast to genomic DNA that is extracted directly from specimens. However, the variety of different sources of eDNA and the range of taxonomic groups that are targeted by eDNA studies is large, which has led to some discussion about the breadth of the eDNA concept. In particular, there is a recent trend to restrict the use of the term "eDNA" to the DNA of macro-organisms, which are not physically present in environmental samples. In this paper, we argue that such a distinction may not be ideal, because the eDNA signal can come from organisms across the whole tree of life. Consequently, we advocate that the term "eDNA" should be used in its generic sense, as originally defined, encompassing the DNA of all organisms present in environmental samples, including microbial, meiofaunal and macrobial taxa. We first suggest specifying the environmental origin of the DNA sample, such as water eDNA, sediment eDNA or soil eDNA. A second specification would then define the taxonomic group targeted through polymerase chain reaction amplification, such as fish eDNA, invertebrate eDNA and bacterial eDNA. This terminology does also not require assumptions about the specific state of the DNA sampled (intracellular or extracellular). We hope that such terminology will help better define the scope of eDNA studies, especially for environmental managers, who use them as reference in routine biomonitoring and bioassessment.
Keywords: bioassessment; biomonitoring; eDNA; environmental genomics; macrobial; metabarcoding; microbial; species detection; terminology.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Comment in
-
Trade-offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA: Comment on "Environmental DNA: What's behind the term?" by Pawlowski et al., (2020).Mol Ecol. 2021 Oct;30(19):4601-4605. doi: 10.1111/mec.15942. Epub 2021 May 25. Mol Ecol. 2021. PMID: 34036646 Free PMC article.
-
Environmental versus extra-organismal DNA.Mol Ecol. 2021 Oct;30(19):4606-4607. doi: 10.1111/mec.16144. Epub 2021 Sep 9. Mol Ecol. 2021. PMID: 34498334 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Altermatt, F., Little, C. J., Mächler, E., Wang, S., Zhang, X., & Blackman, R. C. (2020). Uncovering the complete biodiversity structure in spatial networks: The example of riverine systems. Oikos, 129(5), 607-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06806
-
- Bálint, M., Pfenninger, M., Grossart, H.-P., Taberlet, P., Vellend, M., Leibold, M. A., Englund, G., & Bowler, D. (2018). Environmental DNA time series in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(12), 945-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.003
-
- Bass, D., & Cavalier-Smith, T. (2004). Phylum-specific environmental DNA analysis reveals remarkably high global biodiversity of Cercozoa (Protozoa). International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 54(Pt 6), 2393-2404. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.63229-0
-
- Berney, C., Fahrni, J., & Pawlowski, J. (2004). How many novel eukaryotic “kingdoms”? Pitfalls and limitations of environmental DNA surveys. BMC Biology, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-2-13
-
- Bohmann, K., Evans, A., Gilbert, M. T. P., Carvalho, G. R., Creer, S., Knapp, M., Yu, D. W., & de Bruyn, M. (2014). Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(6), 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.003
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources