Search

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding (parallel sequencing of DNA/RNA for identification of whole communities within a targeted group) is revolutionizing the field of aquatic biomonitoring. To date, most metabarcoding studies aiming to assess the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems have focused on water eDNA and macroinvertebrate bulk samples. However, the eDNA metabarcoding has also been applied to soft sediment samples, mainly for assessing microbial or meiofaunal biota. Compared to classical methodologies based on manual sorting and morphological identification of benthic taxa, eDNA metabarcoding offers potentially important advantages for assessing the environmental quality of sediments. The methods and protocols utilized for sediment eDNA metabarcoding can vary considerably among studies, and standardization efforts are needed to improve their robustness, comparability and use within regulatory frameworks. Here, we review the available information on eDNA metabarcoding applied to sediment samples, with a focus on sampling, preservation, and DNA extraction steps. We discuss challenges specific to sediment eDNA analysis, including the variety of different sources and states of eDNA and its persistence in the sediment. This paper aims to identify good-practice strategies and facilitate method harmonization for routine use of sediment eDNA in future benthic monitoring., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Since 2010, considerable efforts have been undertaken to monitor the environmental status of European marine waters and ensuring the development of methodological standards for the evaluation of this status. However, the current routine biomonitoring implicates time-consuming and costly manual sorting and morphological identification of benthic macrofauna. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding represents an alternative to the traditional monitoring method with very promising results. Here, we tested it further by performing eDNA metabarcoding of benthic eukaryotic communities in the vicinity of two offshore oil and gas platforms in the North Sea. Three different genetic markers (18S V1V2, 18S V9 and COI) were used to assess the environmental pressures induced by the platforms. All markers showed patterns of alpha and beta diversity consistent with morphology-based macrofauna analyses. In particular, the communities' structure inferred from metabarcoding and morphological data significantly changed along distance gradients from the platforms. The impact of the operational discharges was also detected by the variation of biotic index values, AMBI index showing the best correlation between morphological and eDNA data sets. Finally, the sediment physicochemical parameters were used to build a local de novo pressure index that served as benchmark to test the potential of a taxonomy-free approach. Our study demonstrates that metabarcoding approach outperforms morphology-based approach and can be used as a cost and time-saving alternative solution to the traditional morphology-based monitoring in order to monitor more efficiently the impact of industrial activities on marine biodiversity., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)