Abstract
There is a growing body of literature on the use of molecular methods for the ecological assessment of rivers based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Previous research has established the benefits of the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) to assess benthic macroinvertebrate communities as being more efficient, less subjective, and non-invasive compared to traditional methods. The aim of this review is to synthesize the existing knowledge on eDNA sampling, extraction, amplification and sequencing methods regarding river benthic macroinvertebrate metabarcoding studies. Literature searches were performed using two online databases, and following a screening process, 46 papers published between 2012 and 2022 met the eligibility criteria to be included in the review. Since the use of river macrobial eDNA in ecology is a fast-evolving field, the results showed that the methodologies used vary considerably among studies. A variety of filters are used for capturing eDNA from water or preservative ethanol and different sources of eDNA (i.e., sediment, biofilm) are also explored. This review identified 12 different extraction methods and 15 different primer pairs that were used more than once in benthic macroinvertebrate eDNA metabarcoding studies. Therefore, there is a need for standardization of some key steps of the eDNA metabarcoding process to increase the comparability of the results and the robustness of the methods for further implementation into large-scale monitoring programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Benthic macroinvertebrates are a key biological quality element for the assessment of the ecological quality of rivers worldwide, because of their ability to indicate pollution and ecosystem degradation (Hering et al. 2006; Metcalfe-Smith 2009; Kalogianni et al. 2017). The methodologies followed, so far, for sampling, sorting and identification of benthic macroinvertebrates are time consuming and involve intense labor and high levels of expertise. Moreover, the morphological identification of river benthic macroinvertebrates to genus or species level is a challenging task because benthic macroinvertebrates are a very diverse group of organisms and many of the specimens collected are in larval stages and sometimes, they are not in pristine condition for efficient morphological identification. Ntislidou et al. (2020) highlighted the impact of human error during the identification process on water quality assessment and Haase et al. (2010) showed that 29% of the specimens are being overlooked during the sorting process, more than 30% of taxa differ between the analysts at the identification process and 16% of the samples differ at the final ecological assessment. These methodological caveats could have serious implications on river management and restoration plans.
Over the last fifteen years, the development of environmental genomics combined with high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies has led to an advance in surveying biodiversity and monitoring natural ecosystems at a broad spatiotemporal scale (Carraro et al. 2020; Brantschen et al. 2021; Seymour et al. 2021). Specifically, environmental DNA (eDNA) which is defined by Taberlet et al. (2012) as the “DNA that can be extracted from environmental samples (such as soil, water or air), without first isolating any target organisms” has become a valuable tool in a wide range of ecological studies (Taberlet et al. 2018). eDNA is released into the environment through cells, tissues, gametes, mucus, etc. or through the decomposition of dead organisms. It consists of a complex mixture of intracellular and extracellular DNA from many different organisms, and it is possibly degraded (Taberlet et al. 2012).
Recent studies have shown that eDNA metabarcoding can contribute towards new eco-genetic tools that will allow a more efficient, less subjective, cost-effective, and non-invasive alternative to traditional water quality assessments (Leese et al. 2016; Elbrecht et al. 2017; Hering et al. 2018; Pawlowski et al. 2018; Ruppert et al. 2019). It has been repeatedly shown that more species of benthic macroinvertebrates are being detected through eDNA metabarcoding compared to the conventional kick-net sampling followed by morphological identification, but community composition differs among the two methods (Wang et al. 2021; Brantschen et al. 2022; Ji et al. 2022). The dissimilarities in community composition could derive from the fact that eDNA can be transported from the upstream part of the river (Deiner and Altermatt 2014), DNA from different taxa can have different persistence times in the water (Goldberg et al. 2013) and biases of PCR primers during the amplification process can also play a significant role. However, pollution gradient and river ecological quality can be effectively assessed using eDNA metabarcoding data of benthic macroinvertebrates (Fernández et al. 2019; Ji et al. 2022). Brantschen et al. (2021) who compared eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional sampling and taxonomy methods of benthic invertebrates found that ecological classification was the same for 72% of the sampling sites.
Nevertheless, bulk sample DNA metabarcoding through tissue-homogenization has been proposed as a better alternative to eDNA metabarcoding because it can reveal higher diversity than traditional methods and represent local stream macroinvertebrate communities more accurately (Gleason et al. 2021; Pereira-da-Conceicoa et al. 2021). Still, this method, as well as eDNA metabarcoding from preservative ethanol of bulk samples, rely on the conventional kick-net sampling which is highly invasive as it alters the river substrate and extracts the specimens from the ecosystem. It also requires great sampling effort and has some practical limitations regarding access problems to deep river sites. Collecting and filtering water samples simplifies field workflows and more importantly it is a less invasive procedure towards the ecosystem.
Currently, there is no consensus regarding eDNA sampling, capture, preservation and extraction methods or the choice of PCR primers, sequencing platforms, reading depths and bioinformatic pipelines. This leads to sampling, laboratory and bioinformatic biases and contradicting results among different studies. The standardization and intercalibration of the new molecular methods for freshwater macroinvertebrate biomonitoring is of paramount importance for increased chances of future uptake of those methods into routine monitoring programs like the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EU) (Blackman et al. 2019; Lefrançois et al. 2020). To this end, the development of standards under the European Committee for Standardization (CEN TC230/WG28) regarding water sampling for capture of macrobial environmental DNA in aquatic environments is currently in progress (oSIST prEN 17805:2022).
Since the use of river macrobial eDNA in ecology is a fast-evolving field, the main objective of this scoping review is to provide a synthesis of the existing methodologies of eDNA sampling, extraction, and amplification, focusing on river benthic macroinvertebrates. The two primary aims of this study are (a) to provide a comprehensible overview of methods that will help identify possible knowledge gaps, and techniques that need harmonization, and (b) to discuss the advantages and limitations of the methods currently used.
Methods
This review follows the reporting guidelines of PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al. 2018).
For this study, literature searches were performed in the Web of Science on 20 May 2022. The results of the search were refined by trial-and-error queries, that is, by screening the first 100 records and identifying the search terms that would minimize the number of irrelevant records. The sensitivity of the query was increased by adding more synonyms to each of the search terms and the specificity by excluding references that addressed other groups of organisms such as fish and diatoms.
This procedure resulted in the following search being the most effective for the objectives of the current review.
ALL=(“environmental DNA” OR eDNA OR bulk) AND ALL=(river* OR freshwater OR waterc* OR watersh* OR waterw* OR lotic OR stream OR tributar* OR channel* OR aquatic) AND ALL=(invertebrate* OR macroinvertebrate* OR benth* OR “aquatic insect*”) AND ALL=(metabarcoding OR “high throughput sequencing” OR HTS OR “next generation sequencing” OR NGS) NOT TI=(diatom*) NOT TI=(fish).
This query returned 121 results. Twelve of them were review articles and were excluded from further processing.
Additionally, the “Related records” tool in the Web of Science was used to search for articles that share the same references with the “parent” record i.e., the most relevant record to the search terms at the top of the list, in order to identify records that could be included in this review, but their titles, abstracts, or keywords did not meet the search terms. This search returned 49,718 records and, following a citations title screening, the first 146 records that shared at least 5 references with the “parent” record were retained, after excluding 1,318 review articles.
The same search query was performed in the Scopus citation database on 20 May 2022 and returned 89 documents, 7 of which were review papers and were excluded. The search query was:
(TITLE-ABS-KEY ({environmental DNA} OR edna OR bulk) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (river* OR freshwater OR waterc* OR watersh* OR waterw* OR lotic OR stream OR tributar* OR channel* OR aquatic) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (invertebrate? OR macroinvertebrate? OR benth* OR {aquatic insect?}) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (metabarcoding OR {high throughput sequencing} OR hts OR {next generation sequencing} OR ngs) AND NOT TITLE (fish) AND NOT TITLE (diatom?))
Furthermore, an alert for our searches was created both in the Web of Science and the Scopus database from 20 to 2022 until September 2022, which generated 8 additional references.
The above lists of 109, 146, 82 and 8 records were imported in Mendeley Desktop Reference Manager and duplicates were erased resulting in the final reference list of 262 records. Subsequently, a screening process was performed to identify references eligible for inclusion in the review. For a study to meet the inclusion criteria for this review it should:
-
i.
address eDNA and river benthic macroinvertebrates, and
-
ii.
employ eDNA metabarcoding, and
-
iii.
include information on eDNA sampling, extraction, and amplification methods, and
-
iv.
be written in English.
After the title and abstract screening, 173 references were retained, based on the aforementioned criteria, followed by a full text screening that retained the 46 references included in this review (Online Resource 1; List of references).
Full text and supplementary data of each of the 46 references were thoroughly studied and the following information was extracted: authors, title, year of publication, type of environmental samples (i.e., water, sediment etc.), sample volume (ml), number of sample replicates, filter type and pore size (µm), sample preservation and storage conditions, negative and positive controls, number of PCR replicates, methods of DNA extraction, primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing platforms. Publications that used more than one type of environmental samples or more than one method of extraction and/or amplification resulted in multiple entries in the database.
Results
Systematic literature search
The systematic literature search resulted in 46 references that were eligible to be included in this review (Online Resource 1; List of references). The flow diagram in Fig. 1 provides an overview of the sources screened, the number of the references assessed on each step of the systematic literature search and the reasons for exclusion. The results showed that over the last decade the number of published papers that use eDNA metabarcoding to study river benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been rapidly increasing from 1 paper/year in 2012, 2015 and 2016 to 18 papers on 2021 (Fig. 2).
eDNA sampling
There are many aspects to be considered as far as eDNA sampling is concerned, such as the type and volume of the environmental sample (i.e., water, sediment, etc.), the use of sample replicates and field blanks, the type and pore size of the filter (when applicable) and the storage conditions of the samples. The results of this review show that lotic freshwater research is focused primarily on the use of eDNA from water samples, followed by eDNA from preservative ethanol of bulk macroinvertebrate samples, while the use of sediment eDNA for monitoring freshwater ecosystems has been relatively limited (Fig. 3). Furthermore, innovative studies conduct research on new types of macroinvertebrate eDNA samples such as biofilm (Fig. 3) proposed by Rivera et al. (2021).
The vast majority of the publications (32 out of 46) list water filtration as a method for eDNA isolation, and the most frequently used filters are various types of filters of 0.2–0.22 μm pore size, followed by 0.7 μm GF/F filters and 0.45 μm Cellulose Nitrate filters (Fig. 3, Online Resource 1; Table S1). 63% of the river water eDNA studies use sample replicates and the mean volume of water filtered is 858ml. On the other hand, only 33% of sediment and preservative ethanol eDNA studies use sample replicates (Table 1). The preservation of the samples is achieved mostly by freezing at -20oC or below (51% of publications), or by ethanol of at least 95% concentration (16% of the publications) or by a combination of both (18% of publications) (Online Resource 1; Table S2).
eDNA extraction, amplification and sequencing
Commercial extraction kits such as DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen) and PowerWater DNA Isolation Kit (Mobio laboratories) are commonly used in studies that target river benthic macroinvertebrate communities for the extraction of DNA from environmental samples. However, phase separation and precipitation methods such as Phenol-Chloroform Isoamyl DNA extraction, followed by ethanol precipitation and salt-precipitation protocol (Weiss and Leese 2016) are also frequently used (Fig. 4, Online Resource 1; Table S3).
As shown in Fig. 5 (Online Resource 1; Table S4), a variety of primer pairs are used for the amplification of benthic macroinvertebrate eDNA ranging from more universal primer pairs such as mlCOIlintF/jgHCO2198 and BF2/BR2 to primer pairs that target specific groups of benthic macroinvertebrates such as Crust16S_F(short)/Crust16S_R(short) and MOL16S_F/MOL16S_R. Most of the primers used target fragments of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene, which is the standard DNA barcode marker for animals (Fig. 5, Online Resource 1; Table S4).
Negative controls are usually included in eDNA analysis workflows to check for sample contamination. In the reviewed literature, most of the studies employ negative controls for water filtration (when applicable), DNA extraction and/or PCR amplification (Fig. 6, Online Resource 1; Table S5). On the other hand, only 26.5% of the studies use amplification positive controls (Fig. 6, Online Resource 1; Table S5). Moreover, 65% of the studies use 3 PCR replicates on average and the remaining 35% of the studies does not utilize any replicates during the amplification process (Online Resource 1; Table S5).
Regarding the choice of sequencing platforms in the metabarcoding analysis, Illumina MiSeq is the most used sequencing platform in the reviewed literature (76% of the publications) followed by Illumina HiSeq (10%), Ion Torrent Proton (6%), Ion Torrent PGM (4%), Illumina NovaSeq (2%) and Roche 454 (2%) (Online Resource 1; Table S6).
Discussion
eDNA sampling
The main purpose of this review was to summarize the existing knowledge of the methods used in eDNA metabarcoding river benthic macroinvertebrate studies. The results showed that efforts in this field are primarily focused on eDNA captured from river water rather than river sediment or bulk sample preservative ethanol. However, many studies have found that eDNA metabarcoding of bulk sample preservative ethanol is a reliable surrogate for traditional kick-net samples in terms of being able to detect spatial stream communities’ variation (Erdozain et al. 2019; Martins et al. 2019, 2021). Moreover, Wang et al. (2021) found that preservative ethanol eDNA outperforms eDNA from water samples on detecting benthic invertebrate local biodiversity, whereas eDNA from water samples performed better considering broad scale biodiversity patterns. On the other hand, eDNA metabarcoding of preservative ethanol tends to underestimate or miss taxa that are rare, small-bodied or have pronounced exoskeleton when compared to conventional morphotaxonomy or tissue-homogenisation metabarcoding of bulk samples (Zizka et al. 2019b; Martins et al. 2021).
A few studies found that water eDNA does not adequately represent local aquatic macroinvertebrate communities and suggest that capturing eDNA from sediment samples should be further explored as it might be more representative of local benthic invertebrate communities (Gleason et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021). Most benthic invertebrates inhabit the river’s substrate and macroinvertebrate eDNA from the water column could also accumulate in the substrate. To this end, Ji et al. (2022) captured eDNA from sediment samples and found that the number of macroinvertebrate species identified via eDNA metabarcoding at each site was higher than the number of species identified by the traditional morphology method, and Arthropoda, Annelida, and Mollusca, in particular, had statistically significant higher species richness. This could be explained by the fact that eDNA can be accumulated in the sediment and be preserved there even if the source of DNA is no longer present (Turner et al. 2015). Contrary, when studying fish river biodiversity, Sakata et al. (2021) showed that eDNA from sediment samples exhibited high spatial heterogeneity in species composition within a survey site, whereas water eDNA was found to be more homogeneously distributed. Consequently, sediment samples should have many replicates within a site to reflect the local biotic communities. It should also be noted that a newly proposed method that captures macroinvertebrate eDNA in rivers from biofilms shows the capacity of biofilms to retain macroinvertebrate eDNA and should be further explored (Rivera et al. 2021).
This review found that, for the majority of the publications, the capture of river macroinvertebrates eDNA, is done through water filtration (Fig. 3), which has been found to have higher detection rate for macroinvertebrate species compared to capture by precipitation (Deiner et al. 2015). Since eDNA is mostly captured from river water samples, another aspect to be considered during sampling is the volume of the water that needs to be filtered to efficiently represent the local macroinvertebrate communities. One liter is a commonly used volume of water filtered for the assessment of river macroinvertebrates through eDNA metabarcoding (Fernández et al. 2018, 2019; Macher et al. 2018; Bagley et al. 2019; Hajibabaei et al. 2019; Uchida et al. 2020; Clusa et al. 2021; Hupalo et al. 2022; Reinholdt et al. 2021; Seymour et al. 2021). Machler et al. (2016) who sampled different volumes of river water ranging from 0.25 to 2 L and studied the effect of sampled water volume on the detection of three macroinvertebrate species, suggest a minimum water volume of 1 L to reduce false negative detections.
The pore size of the filter used to capture eDNA is also an important factor that could affect the results of eDNA metabarcoding. The findings of this review showed that in river macroinvertebrate eDNA metabarcoding studies, filters of 0.2–0.22 μm, 0.45 and 0.7 μm pore sizes are mostly used (Fig. 3). In general, the amount of eDNA yielded increases with the decrease of filter pore size (Renshaw et al. 2015) but small pore size filters can easily clog in turbid environments (Deiner et al. 2016; Jeunen et al. 2022; Keck et al. 2022). Pre-filtration of water can be applied to overcome this issue. However, Majaneva et al. (2018) showed that although pre-filtration gives higher diversity index values, it lowers the amount of DNA yielded. Another way to overcome this issue is by using multiple filters until the desired volume of water filtered is achieved, which can increase the price per sample drastically.
Regarding the different filter membrane materials, Majaneva et al. (2018) found that mixed cellulose ester membrane filters (CN, 0.45 μm) yielded more DNA compared to polyethersulfone (PES, 0.2 μm) filters, while Spens et al. (2017) showed that mixed cellulose ester membrane filters (CN, 0.45 μm) and sterivex-GP capsule filters (polyethersulfone, 0.2 μm) yielded higher amount of eDNA compared with glass fibre (GF, 0.6 μm) and polycarbonate track etched filters (PCTE, 0.2 μm), in freshwater samples. Djurhuus et al. (2017) found nitrocellulose (NC, 0.2 μm) and polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF, 0.2 μm) filters yielded more DNA than polycarbonate track etched (PCTE, 0.2 μm) and glass microfiber (GFF, 0.7 μm) filters in marine environments without the material of any of the 0.2 μm filters affecting the estimates of species richness and community composition.
Collecting field replicate samples, in each sampling site, is a way to increase the volume of water sampled and thus the detection probabilities of taxa. The number of field replicates to be collected depends on whether the system is lotic or lentic, the study objective i.e., the level of confidence needed to the detection of taxa, the budget, and the target species (Hobbs et al. 2017). In any case, when spatial heterogeneity of eDNA is expected (i.e., different flow velocity microhabitats in lotic systems), it is important to collect eDNA samples from various spots in a sampling site, either pooled or not, to better represent the biodiversity of the aquatic communities.
Another finding of this review is that the preservation of eDNA samples, before extraction, is usually done by freezing (-20oC or -80oC) (Carraro et al. 2020; Uchida et al. 2020; Persaud et al. 2021; Reinholdt Jensen et al. 2021; Keck et al. 2022) or by the addition of a preservative (ethanol or lysis buffer) to the filters followed by freezing (Bagley et al. 2019; Brantschen et al. 2021; Gleason et al. 2021; Hupało et al. 2022). To better prevent eDNA degradation, immediate addition of a preservative (molecular grade ethanol or Longmire’s buffer) is recommended by Spens et al. (2017) compared to freezing or extraction of eDNA within 5 h after filtration. Moreover, closed type filters i.e., Sterivex capsules, were found to have higher total eDNA yields and retain eDNA integrity at room temperature for at least 2 weeks (Spens et al. 2017). These attributes along with the reduced risk of contamination, make filter capsules preferable for long sampling campaigns in remote environments.
eDNA extraction, amplification and sequencing
Previous studies evaluating how different eDNA capture and extraction methods affect biodiversity results of aquatic communities found a strong effect of the choice of methods on biodiversity detection (Deiner at al. 2015; Spens et al. 2017). The current review found that for eDNA extraction, many studies have used the DNeasy Blood and Tissue and PowerWater DNA Isolation Kits (Fig. 4). In rivers, eDNA capture by filtration combined with phenol–chloroform–isoamyl (PCI) extraction followed by ethanol precipitation yielded the highest amount of eDNA compared to other protocol combinations that had been tested (Deiner et al. 2015). Moreover, the combination of filtration with DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit or PCI extraction has been shown to detect higher eukaryotes diversity (Deiner et al. 2015, Ruan et al. 2022). Renshaw et al. (2015) showed that PCI extraction protocol potentially yields more eDNA than DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit when they used 0.45 μm CN filters for the capture of eDNA. Additionally, protocols where the DNA extraction is done directly from filter cartridges have been developed (Miya et al. 2016; Spens et al. 2017) and optimized (Wong et al. 2020) to efficiently extract high DNA yields from environmental samples while reducing the risk of contamination.
For eDNA amplification, most of the river macroinvertebrate eDNA metabarcoding studies utilize the standard DNA barcode marker for animals, mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), which is highly efficient in discriminating vertebrate and invertebrate species (Fig. 5). However, a few studies, comparing different markers that amplify regions in the 18S, 16S and COI genes, identified that the performance of each marker varied, and recommend the use of multiple markers in freshwater macroinvertebrate samples to detect a wider range of taxa (Meyer et al. 2021; Ficetola et al. 2021; Martins et al. 2021). However, the COI marker has a notable reference library and in Europe, 64.5% of the freshwater macroinvertebrates used in ecological quality assessment is represented in BOLD database with at least 1 COI barcode and 41.8% with at least 5 COI barcodes (Weigand et al. 2019). Still, there are many unassigned reads in metabarcoding studies, and more effort should be put towards filling the reference libraries gaps.
Various primer pairs, targeting COI, are used for the amplification of macroinvertebrate eDNA with mlCOIlintF/jgHCO2198 and BF2/BR2 being the most popular (Fig. 5). It has been reported many times that the BF2/BR2 primer pair mostly amplifies non-target eDNA in river macroinvertebrate studies (Persaud et al. 2012; Macher et al. 2018; Zizka et al. 2019b; Leese et al. 2021; Gleason et al. 2021; Pereira-da-Conceicoa et al. 2021; Rivera et al. 2021) probably because it was designed to target a long (421 bp) fragment of the COI gene and thus it is difficult to amplify degraded extracellular DNA. On the other hand, the fwhF2/EPTDr2n primer pair that was designed by Leese et al. (2021) to optimize the detection of freshwater invertebrates in eDNA samples, achieved to yield on average > 99% of the reads from benthic invertebrate taxa. Furthermore, Brantschen et al. (2022) showed that the fwhF2/EPTDr2n primer pair can detect more indicator species belonging to the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera families compared to the mICOIintF/jgHCO2198 primer pair, resulting in a sufficient characterization of macroinvertebrate communities.
Furthermore, in metabarcoding studies, biodiversity was found to vary between PCR replicates (Deiner et al. 2015; Alberdi et al. 2018) but currently there are no set criteria for the minimum number of technical replicates necessary to optimize biodiversity detection. This review showed that studies use 3 PCR replicates on average to counteract stochastic effects of PCR amplification. Many more parameters of PCR amplification, like the number of PCR cycles and PCR inhibition that can affect the results of eDNA studies are explored in the bibliography (Kelly et al. 2019; Zizka et al. 2019a; Doi et al. 2021), while other studies propose the replacement of PCR amplification with bait capture enrichment as a way to overcome primer bias (Dowle et al. 2016; Gauthier et al. 2020). The use of positive amplification controls that is currently not widely adopted (Fig. 6) is important to detect possible PCR inhibition and the use of negative controls in every step of the metabarcoding process is also important to check for sample contamination and ensure the reliability of the metabarcoding results.
On the other hand, Smith and Peay (2014) suggest that PCR replication is not as important as reading depth in detecting diversity and show that the number of PCR replicates, when pooled together, does not affect a- and b-diversity metrics, whilst pseudo-b-diversity between sequencing replicates decreases with an increasing number of reads per sample. Other studies have also shown that the observed diversity increased with increasing sequencing depth (Alberdi et al. 2018; Shirazi et al. 2021) but at a large number of reads it reaches a plateau (Altermatt et al. 2023). As the technology of HTS advances and the efficiency of sequencing platforms increases, greater biodiversity can be uncovered as shown by Singer et al. (2019) who exhibited that Illumina NovaSeq can detect more DNA sequence diversity than the Illumina MiSeq in a high diversity ocean environment. Since the cost of these platforms is high, a cost-efficient alternative is Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencer that has been used to successfully identify aquatic invertebrates of a mock community (Baloğlu et al. 2021). However, previously reported high raw read error rates hinder the MinION’s use in metabarcoding (Krehenwinkel et al. 2019). Currently, an updated enzyme combined with the new R10.4.1 nanopore provides ≥ 99% raw read accuracy which is yet to be tested in freshwater invertebrate eDNA studies.
The last and crucial step in the metabarcoding workflow is the bioinformatic analysis of the high throughput sequencing output. Many bioinformatic pipelines like QIIME (Caporaso et al. 2010), OBITools (Boyer et al. 2016), JAMP (https://github.com/VascoElbrecht/JAMP) and APSCALE (Buchner et al. 2022) are used for quality control of the reads, assembling paired reads, demultiplexing, quality filtering, denoising and taxonomic assignment. However, caution is needed in the parametrization of each step because as showcased by Majaneva et al. (2015) different bioinformatic strategies can lead to different results when interpreting diversity and taxonomic composition of eukaryotic communities.
Conclusions
By reviewing the relevant literature, a great effort has been made the last fifteen years towards the advance of molecular methodologies concerning river benthic macroinvertebrates. It has been shown by many studies that eDNA metabarcoding can complement conventional water quality assessment methods by providing increased taxonomic resolution and revealing a higher amount of river benthic macroinvertebrate diversity. Importantly, our review emphasizes the need for further research and continued efforts to develop robust and standardized methodologies depending on the objectives of each study (i.e., broad scale biodiversity, water quality biomonitoring, monitoring of invasive species etc.). First of all, experimental studies should be conducted to compare eDNA of benthic macroinvertebrates from river water to eDNA from sediment and biofilm and test the efficiency of each sampling strategy, since the predominant method of capturing eDNA of benthic macroinvertebrates is through water filtration and little is known about eDNA from other sources. Secondly, this review has identified 15 different primer pairs that were used more than once in benthic macroinvertebrate eDNA studies and underlines the need for further testing of different primer pairs that will help optimize the taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrates and increase the robustness of the method. Thirdly, the exponential increase of eDNA metabarcoding studies and consequently the vast number of datasets that will be produced call for some standardization in reporting. It is crucial at this early point to follow the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016) in order to maximize the impact that eDNA data can have on protecting the natural environment (Berry et al. 2021). Finally, as it seems impossible and impractical to standardize all aspects concerning metabarcoding protocols, calibration experiments, should be conducted to identify the key steps and the factors that introduce biases and biological variation (Blackman et al. 2019; Zaiko et al. 2021). The maximum possible standardization and harmonization of sampling and laboratory framework for macroinvertebrate eDNA metabarcoding studies would constitute the cornerstone towards the implementation of molecular techniques in river monitoring programs.
Data Availability
Not applicable.
References
Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP, Bohmann K (2018) Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol Evol 9:134–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12849
Altermatt F, Carraro L, Antonetti M et al (2023) Quantifying biodiversity using eDNA from water bodies: General principles and recommendations for sampling designs. Environ DNA 5:671–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.430
Bagley M, Pilgrim E, Knapp M, Yoder C, Santo Domingo J, Banerji A (2019) High-throughput environmental DNA analysis informs a biological assessment of an urban stream. Ecol Indic 104:378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.088
Baloğlu B, Chen Z, Elbrecht V et al (2021) A workflow for accurate metabarcoding using nanopore MinION sequencing. Methods Ecol Evol 12:794–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13561
Berry O, Jarman S, Bissett A et al (2021) Making environmental DNA (eDNA) biodiversity records globally accessible. Environ DNA 3:699–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.173
Blackman RC, Mächler E, Altermatt F et al (2019) Advancing the use of molecular methods for routine freshwater macroinvertebrate biomonitoring - the need for calibration experiments. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 3:49–57. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.3.34735
Boyer F, Mercier C, Bonin A et al (2016) Obitools: a unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 16:176–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12428
Brantschen J, Blackman RC, Walser JC, Altermatt F (2021) Environmental DNA gives comparable results to morphology-based indices of macroinvertebrates in a large-scale ecological assessment. PLoS ONE 16:e0257510. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0257510
Brantschen J, Pellissier L, Walser J-C, Altermatt F (2022) Evaluation of primer pairs for eDNA-based assessment of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera across a biogeographically diverse region. Environ DNA 00:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/EDN3.342
Buchner D, Macher T-H, Leese F (2022) APSCALE: advanced pipeline for simple yet comprehensive analyses of DNA metabarcoding data. Bioinformatics 38:4817–4819. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac588
Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J et al (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7:335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303
Carraro L, Mächler E, Wüthrich R, Altermatt F (2020) Environmental DNA allows upscaling spatial patterns of biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems. Nat Commun 11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17337-8
Clusa L, Garcia-Vazquez E, Fernández S et al (2021) Nuisance species in lake constance revealed through eDNA. Biol Invasions 23:1619–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02462-2
Deiner K, Altermatt F (2014) Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS ONE 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088786
Deiner K, Walser JC, Machler E, Altermatt F (2015) Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA. Biol Conserv 183:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.018
Djurhuus A, Port J, Closek CJ et al (2017) Evaluation of filtration and DNA extraction methods for environmental DNA biodiversity assessments across multiple trophic levels. 4:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00314
Doi H, Minamoto T, Takahara T et al (2021) Compilation of real-time PCR conditions toward the standardization of environmental DNA methods. Ecol Res 36:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12217
Dowle EJ, Pochon X, Banks JC et al (2016) Targeted gene enrichment and high-throughput sequencing for environmental biomonitoring: a case study using freshwater macroinvertebrates. Mol Ecol Resour 16:1240–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12488
Erdozain M, Thompson DG, Porter TM et al (2019) Metabarcoding of storage ethanol vs. conventional morphometric identification in relation to the use of stream macroinvertebrates as ecological indicators in forest management. Ecol Indic 101:173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.014
Fernández S, Rodríguez S, Martínez JL et al (2018) Evaluating freshwater macroinvertebrates from eDNA metabarcoding: a river Nalón case study. PLoS ONE 13:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201741
Fernández S, Rodríguez-Martínez S, Martínez JL et al (2019) How can eDNA contribute in riverine macroinvertebrate assessment? A metabarcoding approach in the Nalón River (Asturias, Northern Spain). Environ DNA 1:385–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.40
Ficetola GF, Boyer F, Valentini A, Bonin A, Meyer A, Dejean T, Gaboriaud C, Usseglio-Polatera P, Taberlet P (2021) Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 30:3189–3202. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15632
Gauthier M, Konecny-Dupré L, Nguyen A et al (2020) Enhancing DNA metabarcoding performance and applicability with bait capture enrichment and DNA from conservative ethanol. Mol Ecol Resour 20:79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13088
Gleason JE, Elbrecht V, Braukmann TWA, Hanner RH, Cottenie K (2021) Assessment of stream macroinvertebrate communities with eDNA is not congruent with tissue-based metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 30:3239–3251. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15597
Goldberg CS, Sepulveda A, Ray A, Baumgardt J, Waits LP (2013) Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Freshw Sci 32:792–800. https://doi.org/10.1899/13-046.1
Haase P, Pauls SU, Schindehütte K, Sundermann A (2010) First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:1279–1291. https://doi.org/10.1899/09-183.1
Hajibabaei M, Porter TM, Robinson CV, Baird DJ, Shokralla S, Wright MTG (2019) Watered-down biodiversity? A comparison of metabarcoding results from DNA extracted from matched water and bulk tissue biomonitoring samples. PLoS ONE 14:e0225409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225409
Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot PFM (2006) Assessment of european streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshw Biol 51:1757–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x
Hering D, Borja A, Jones JII et al (2018) Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. WATER Res 138:192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003
Hobbs J, Goldberg CS, Helbing CC, Veldhoen N (2017) Environmental DNA Protocol for Freshwater Aquatic Ecosystems, Version 2.2. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Environment. November 2017
Hupalo K, Schmidt S, Macher T-HH, Weiss M, Leese F (2022) Fresh insights into Mediterranean biodiversity: environmental DNA reveals spatio-temporal patterns of stream invertebrate communities on Sicily. Hydrobiologia 849:155–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04718-3
Jeunen G-J, Lipinskaya T, Gajduchenko H et al (2022) Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys show evidence of non-indigenous freshwater species invasion to new parts of Eastern Europe. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6:171–186. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.e68575
Ji F, Han D, Yan L et al (2022) Assessment of benthic invertebrate diversity and river ecological status along an urbanized gradient using environmental DNA metabarcoding and a traditional survey method. Sci Total Environ 806:150587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150587
Kalogianni E, Vourka A, Karaouzas I, Vardakas L, Laschou S, Skoulikidis NT (2017) Combined effects of water stress and pollution on macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages in a Mediterranean intermittent river. Sci Total Environ 603–604:639–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.078
Keck F, Hürlemann S, Locher N et al (2022) A triad of kicknet sampling, eDNA metabarcoding, and predictive modeling to assess richness of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies in rivers. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6:117–131. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.79351
Kelly RP, Shelton AO, Gallego R (2019) Understanding PCR processes to draw meaningful conclusions from environmental DNA studies. Sci Rep 9:12133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48546-x
Krehenwinkel H, Pomerantz A, Prost S (2019) Genetic biomonitoring and Biodiversity Assessment using portable sequencing Technologies: current uses and future directions. Genes (Basel) 10:858. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10110858
Leese F, Altermatt F, Bouchez A et al (2016) DNAqua-Net: developing new genetic tools for bioassessment and monitoring of aquatic ecosystems in Europe. Res Ideas Outcomes 2:e11321. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e11321
Leese F, Sander M, Buchner D et al (2021) Improved freshwater macroinvertebrate detection from environmental DNA through minimized nontarget amplification. Environ DNA 3:261–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.177
Lefrançois E, Blancher P, Rimet F, Bouchez A (2020) Strategy for successful integration of eDNA-based methods in aquatic monitoring. Synthesis of DNAqua-Net 2020 prospective workshops. p 31. https://doi.org/10.15454/29LFIW
Macher J-N, Vivancos A, Piggott JJ et al (2018) Comparison of environmental DNA and bulk-sample metabarcoding using highly degenerate cytochrome c oxidase I primers. Mol Ecol Resour 18:1456–1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12940
Mächler E, Deiner K, Spahn F, Altermatt F (2016) Fishing in the Water: Effect of Sampled Water volume on environmental DNA-Based detection of Macroinvertebrates. Environ Sci Technol 50:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04188
Majaneva M, Hyytiäinen K, Varvio SL et al (2015) Bioinformatic Amplicon Read Processing Strategies strongly affect eukaryotic diversity and the Taxonomic Composition of Communities. PLoS ONE 10:e0130035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130035
Majaneva M, Diserud OH, Eagle SHC, Boström E, Hajibabaei M, Ekrem T (2018) Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity. Sci Rep 8:4682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23052-8
Martins FMS, Galhardo M, Filipe AF, Teixeira A, Pinheiro P, Paupério J, Alves PC, Beja P (2019) Have the cake and eat it: optimizing nondestructive DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate samples for freshwater biomonitoring. Mol Ecol Resour 19:863–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13012
Martins FMS, Porto M, Feio MJ, Egeter B, Bonin A, Serra SRQ, Taberlet P, Beja P (2021) Modelling technical and biological biases in macroinvertebrate community assessment from bulk preservative using multiple metabarcoding markers. Mol Ecol 30:3221–3238. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15620
Metcalfe-Smith JL (2009) Biological Water-Quality Assessment of Rivers: Use of Macroinvertebrate Communities. The Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK, pp 144–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444313871.ch8
Meyer A, Boyer F, Valentini A et al (2021) Morphological vs. DNA metabarcoding approaches for the evaluation of stream ecological status with benthic invertebrates: testing different combinations of markers and strategies of data filtering. Mol Ecol 30:3203–3220. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15723
Miya M, Minamoto T, Yamanaka H et al (2016) Use of a Filter Cartridge for Filtration of Water samples and extraction of environmental DNA. JoVE (Journal Vis Exp) 2016:e54741. https://doi.org/10.3791/54741
Ntislidou C, Bozatzidou M, Argyriou AK, Karaouzas I, Skoulikidis N, Lazaridou M (2020) Minimizing human error in macroinvertebrate samples analyses for ensuring quality precision in freshwater monitoring programs. Sci Total Environ 703:135496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135496
Pawlowski J, Kelly-Quinn M, Altermatt F et al (2018) The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 637–638:1295–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.002
Pereira-da‐Conceicoa L, Elbrecht V, Hall A, Briscoe A, Barber-James H, Price B (2021) Metabarcoding unsorted kick‐samples facilitates macroinvertebrate‐based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA. Environ DNA 3:353–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.116
Persaud SF, Cottenie K, Gleason JE (2021) Ethanol eDNA reveals Unique Community composition of aquatic Macroinvertebrates compared to bulk tissue metabarcoding in a Biomonitoring Sampling Scheme. Diversity 13:34. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13010034
Reinholdt Jensen M, Egelyng Sigsgaard E, Agersnap S et al (2021) Seasonal turnover in community composition of stream-associated macroinvertebrates inferred from freshwater environmental DNA metabarcoding. Environ DNA 3:861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.193
Renshaw MA, Olds BP, Jerde CL, Mcveigh MM, Lodge DM (2015) The room temperature preservation of filtered environmental DNA samples and assimilation into a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl alcohol DNA extraction. Mol Ecol Resour 15:168–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12281
Rivera SF, Vasselon V, Mary N, Monnier O, Rimet F, Bouchez A (2021) Exploring the capacity of aquatic biofilms to act as environmental DNA samplers: test on macroinvertebrate communities in rivers. Sci Total Environ 763:144208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144208
Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS (2019) Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: a systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob Ecol Conserv 17:e00547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547
Sakata MK, Watanabe T, Maki N et al (2021) Determining an effective sampling method for eDNA metabarcoding: a case study for fish biodiversity monitoring in a small, natural river. Limnology 22:221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-020-00645-9
Seymour M, Edwards FK, Cosby BJ et al (2021) Environmental DNA provides higher resolution assessment of riverine biodiversity and ecosystem function via spatio-temporal nestedness and turnover partitioning. Commun Biol 4:512. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02031-2
Shirazi S, Meyer RS, Shapiro B (2021) Revisiting the effect of PCR replication and sequencing depth on biodiversity metrics in environmental DNA metabarcoding. Ecol Evol 11:15766–15779. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8239
Singer GAC, Fahner NA, Barnes JG et al (2019) Comprehensive biodiversity analysis via ultra-deep patterned flow cell technology: a case study of eDNA metabarcoding seawater. Sci Rep 9:5991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42455-9
Smith DP, Peay KG (2014) Sequence depth, not PCR replication, improves ecological inference from Next Generation DNA sequencing. PLoS ONE 9:e90234. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090234
Spens J, Evans AR, Halfmaerten D, Knudsen SW, Sengupta ME, Mak SST, Sigsgaard EE, Hellström M (2017) Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods Ecol Evol 8:635–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12683
Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH (2012) Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21:1789–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05542.x
Taberlet P, Bonin A, Zinger L, Coissac E (2018) Environmental DNA: for biodiversity research and monitoring. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767220.001.0001
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al (2018) PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med 169:467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Turner CR, Uy KL, Everhart RC (2015) Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biol Conserv 183:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.017
Uchida N, Kubota K, Aita S, Kazama S (2020) Aquatic insect community structure revealed by eDNA metabarcoding derives indices for environmental assessment. PeerJ 8:e9176. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9176
Wang Y, Chen K, Gao J et al (2021) Environmental DNA of preservative ethanol performed better than water samples in detecting macroinvertebrate diversity using metabarcoding. Divers Distrib 27:1989–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13284
Weigand H, Beermann AJ, Čiampor F et al (2019) DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Sci Total Environ 678:499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247
Weiss M, Leese F (2016) Widely distributed and regionally isolated! Drivers of genetic structure in Gammarus fossarum in a human-impacted landscape. BMC Evol Biol 16:153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0723-z
Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ et al (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Wong MKS, Nakao M, Hyodo S Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter. Sci Rep 10:21531., Greenfield P, Abbott C et al (2020) (2022) Towards reproducible metabarcoding data: Lessons from an international cross-laboratory experiment. Mol Ecol Resour 22:519–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13485
Zizka VMA, Elbrecht V, Macher J, Leese F (2019a) Assessing the influence of sample tagging and library preparation on DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 19:893–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13018
Zizka VMA, Leese F, Peinert B, Geiger MF (2019b) DNA metabarcoding from sample fixative as a quick and voucher-preserving biodiversity assessment method. Genome 62:122–136. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2018-0048
Funding
Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece. The publication of the article in OA mode was financially supported by HEAL-Link Greece.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
“All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analyses were performed by Aikaterini Vourka. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Aikaterini Vourka, and all authors contributed to revisions. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.“
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by David Hawksworth.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vourka, A., Karaouzas, I. & Parmakelis, A. River benthic macroinvertebrates and environmental DNA metabarcoding: a scoping review of eDNA sampling, extraction, amplification and sequencing methods. Biodivers Conserv 32, 4221–4238 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02710-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02710-y