Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams

ABSTRACT The detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized aquatic species monitoring, yet interpreting eDNA data remains challenging due to gaps in our understanding of eDNA ecology (i.e., origin, state, transport, and fate) and variability in how eDNA methods are applied across the lite...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias, Elise Snyder, Jennifer L. Tank, Ursula H. Mahl, Brett Peters, Arial J. Shogren, Diogo Bolster, Gary A. Lamberti, Kyle Bibby, Scott P. Egan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-03-01
Series:Environmental DNA
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70066
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849712054227697664
author Pedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias
Elise Snyder
Jennifer L. Tank
Ursula H. Mahl
Brett Peters
Arial J. Shogren
Diogo Bolster
Gary A. Lamberti
Kyle Bibby
Scott P. Egan
author_facet Pedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias
Elise Snyder
Jennifer L. Tank
Ursula H. Mahl
Brett Peters
Arial J. Shogren
Diogo Bolster
Gary A. Lamberti
Kyle Bibby
Scott P. Egan
author_sort Pedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT The detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized aquatic species monitoring, yet interpreting eDNA data remains challenging due to gaps in our understanding of eDNA ecology (i.e., origin, state, transport, and fate) and variability in how eDNA methods are applied across the literature. A crucial aspect of the complexity of eDNA ecology is that eDNA is a heterogeneous mix of components that vary in size and other properties, thereby influencing interactions with the environment in diverse ways. In this study, we explore the interplay between three eDNA particle sizes (the physical dimension of eDNA‐containing particles) and two molecule lengths (DNA size in base pairs) in flowing water systems. Specifically, we elucidated the mechanisms governing the removal of different eDNA components using a set of 24 recirculating mesocosms where we varied light and substrate conditions. Consistent with previous observations, our findings revealed substantial differences in the mechanisms of eDNA removal between small and large eDNA particles. In mesocosms with biofilm‐colonized substrate, we found higher removal rates for smaller particles, but larger eDNA particles were removed more quickly in presence of any substrate. Importantly, we also found that biofilm removes longer eDNA molecules faster, shedding light on a probable mechanism underlying the longstanding association between eDNA removal and the presence of biofilm. Despite the association between biofilm colonization and faster removal of longer molecules, the two eDNA molecule sizes we analyzed (86 and 387 base pairs) exhibited somewhat consistent behavior. In combination, our observations highlight that particle size is an important predictor of eDNA fate, and that eDNA fate shows few differences across varying molecule lengths. Furthermore, our work suggests that conclusions regarding eDNA ecology from studies utilizing short DNA markers are applicable to metabarcoding applications, which typically use longer marker lengths.
format Article
id doaj-art-e4c9288265bf4c59ab119a597754e9f4
institution DOAJ
issn 2637-4943
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Environmental DNA
spelling doaj-art-e4c9288265bf4c59ab119a597754e9f42025-08-20T03:14:24ZengWileyEnvironmental DNA2637-49432025-03-0172n/an/a10.1002/edn3.70066Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating StreamsPedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias0Elise Snyder1Jennifer L. Tank2Ursula H. Mahl3Brett Peters4Arial J. Shogren5Diogo Bolster6Gary A. Lamberti7Kyle Bibby8Scott P. Egan9Department of Biosciences Rice University Houston Texas USADepartment of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biological Sciences The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa Alabama USADepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Indiana USADepartment of Biosciences Rice University Houston Texas USAABSTRACT The detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized aquatic species monitoring, yet interpreting eDNA data remains challenging due to gaps in our understanding of eDNA ecology (i.e., origin, state, transport, and fate) and variability in how eDNA methods are applied across the literature. A crucial aspect of the complexity of eDNA ecology is that eDNA is a heterogeneous mix of components that vary in size and other properties, thereby influencing interactions with the environment in diverse ways. In this study, we explore the interplay between three eDNA particle sizes (the physical dimension of eDNA‐containing particles) and two molecule lengths (DNA size in base pairs) in flowing water systems. Specifically, we elucidated the mechanisms governing the removal of different eDNA components using a set of 24 recirculating mesocosms where we varied light and substrate conditions. Consistent with previous observations, our findings revealed substantial differences in the mechanisms of eDNA removal between small and large eDNA particles. In mesocosms with biofilm‐colonized substrate, we found higher removal rates for smaller particles, but larger eDNA particles were removed more quickly in presence of any substrate. Importantly, we also found that biofilm removes longer eDNA molecules faster, shedding light on a probable mechanism underlying the longstanding association between eDNA removal and the presence of biofilm. Despite the association between biofilm colonization and faster removal of longer molecules, the two eDNA molecule sizes we analyzed (86 and 387 base pairs) exhibited somewhat consistent behavior. In combination, our observations highlight that particle size is an important predictor of eDNA fate, and that eDNA fate shows few differences across varying molecule lengths. Furthermore, our work suggests that conclusions regarding eDNA ecology from studies utilizing short DNA markers are applicable to metabarcoding applications, which typically use longer marker lengths.https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70066ddPCRdecayeDNA ecologynested PCRsequential filtration
spellingShingle Pedro F. P. Brandão‐Dias
Elise Snyder
Jennifer L. Tank
Ursula H. Mahl
Brett Peters
Arial J. Shogren
Diogo Bolster
Gary A. Lamberti
Kyle Bibby
Scott P. Egan
Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
Environmental DNA
ddPCR
decay
eDNA ecology
nested PCR
sequential filtration
title Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
title_full Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
title_fullStr Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
title_short Comparing the Fate of eDNA by Particle Sizes and Molecule Lengths in Recirculating Streams
title_sort comparing the fate of edna by particle sizes and molecule lengths in recirculating streams
topic ddPCR
decay
eDNA ecology
nested PCR
sequential filtration
url https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70066
work_keys_str_mv AT pedrofpbrandaodias comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT elisesnyder comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT jenniferltank comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT ursulahmahl comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT brettpeters comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT arialjshogren comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT diogobolster comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT garyalamberti comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT kylebibby comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams
AT scottpegan comparingthefateofednabyparticlesizesandmoleculelengthsinrecirculatingstreams