Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov;29(22):4258-4264.
doi: 10.1111/mec.15643. Epub 2020 Oct 13.

Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring

Affiliations

Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring

Jan Pawlowski et al. Mol Ecol. 2020 Nov.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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

Substances

LinkOut - more resources