How to barcode (almost all) freshwater biodiversity
Orianne TournayreiD, Haolun TianiD, David R. LougheediD, Matthew J.S. WindleiD, Sheldon Lambert, Jennipher Carter, Zhengxin SuniD, Jeff Ridal, Yuxiang WangiD, Brian F. CummingiD, Shelley E. ArnottiD, Stephen C. LougheediD
Abstract
Freshwater ecosystems are complex, diverse and face a variety of imminent threats that have led to changes in both ecosystem structure and function. It is urgent that we develop and standardize monitoring tools allowing for rapid and comprehensive assessment of freshwater communities to understand their changing dynamics and to inform conservation. Environmental DNA surveys offer a means to inventory and monitor aquatic diversity, yet most studies focus on one or a few taxonomic groups only. In this study, we sought to 1) identify thoroughly validated, cost-efficient primer pair combinations that maximize detection of broad swaths of freshwater diversity, and 2) facilitate future primer pair selection by creating a free online and user-friendly tool. We first evaluated the completeness of public reference sequence databases and the efficiency of 14 primer pairs using an in silico approach, and then performed eDNA surveys using five mock communities (mix of DNA from tissues), water samples from aquarium samples with known taxonomic composition, and finally water samples from freshwater systems in Eastern Canada. We highlight the power of eDNA-based metabarcoding for reconstructing freshwater communities, including prey, parasite, pathogen, invasive, and declining species. Our work reveals the importance of the marker choice on species resolution, as well as the importance of degenerate primers, the length of the target fragment and the filtering parameters on detection success in water eDNA samples. Our new online tool SNIPe revealed that 13 to 14 primer pairs are necessary to recover 100% of the species in water samples (aquarium and natural systems), but four primer pairs are sufficient to recover almost 75% of taxa with little overlap. These results highlight the usefulness of eDNA for freshwater monitoring and should prompt more studies on tools to survey all-inclusive communities.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 12
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Field percentile
- top 11%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Variable performances of commercial eDNA inventories challenge their use for surveying stream fish communities
Jean‐Marc Roussel, Erwan Quéméré, … Hadrien Lalagüe·bioRxiv·May 19, 2026
- eDNA metabarcoding outperforms traditional fisheries sampling and reveals fine-scale heterogeneity in a temperate freshwater lake
Rebecca R. Gehri, Wesley A. Larson, … Yue Shi·Environmental DNAPeer-reviewed·May 6, 2021
- Freshwater fish community assessment using eDNA metabarcoding vs. capture-based methods: differences in efficiency and resolution coupled to habitat and ecology
Manuel Curto, Sofia Batista, … Hugo F. Gante·Environmental ResearchPeer-reviewed·Feb 26, 2025
- Environmental DNA from a small sample of reservoir water can tell volumes about its biodiversity.
André LQ Torres, Danielle Luciana Aurora Soares do Amaral, … Mauro de Freitas Rebelo·bioRxiv·Aug 6, 2021
- In silico assessment of primers for eDNA studies using PrimerTree and application to characterize the biodiversity surrounding the Cuyahoga River
Matthew Cannon, James Hester, … David Serre·bioRxiv·Mar 9, 2016
- Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities