Geology topics

Rachel T. Noble

Publications and source records attributed to Rachel T. Noble.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

What is eDNA method standardization and why do we need it?

The rapid advancement of environmental DNA ( eDNA ) science in the past two decades has inspired a concomitant growth in the development of eDNA sampling and analytical methods. However, these methods are often developed by individual laboratories or institutions, which can isolate protocols within programmes, agencies or regions and prevent the beneficial exchange of data and ideas. Recent efforts to advance national and international coordination have resulted in a groundswell of standardisation efforts, but there is still considerable confusion around the role of formal standards for regulatory or research applications. With this commentary, we hope to provide clarity on the terminology used in standardisation discussions, including the differences between formal standards and best practice guidelines. Additionally, we discuss how eDNA method choice may be informed by environmental management scenarios and review examples of formal eDNA method standards being used to inform management action. The eDNA community now has an opportunity to develop a roadmap for method development to help close standardisation gaps, advance eDNA method adoption and accelerate our ability to monitor biological life at the scales our current environmental challenges demand.

Metabarcoding and Metagenomics↗

USGS2024

The MIEM guidelines: Minimum information for reporting of environmental metabarcoding data

Environmental DNA ( eDNA ) and RNA ( eRNA ) metabarcoding has become a popular tool for assessing biodiversity from environmental samples, but inconsistent documentation of methods, data and metadata makes results difficult to reproduce and synthesise. A working group of scientists have collaborated to produce a set of minimum reporting guidelines for the constituent steps of metabarcoding workflows, from the physical layout of laboratories through to data archiving. We emphasise how reporting the suite of data and metadata should adhere to findable, accessible, interoperable and reproducible ( FAIR ) data standards, thereby providing context for evaluating and understanding study results. An overview of the documentation considerations for each workflow step is presented and then summarised in a checklist that can accompany a published study or report. Ensuring workflows are transparent and documented is critical to reproducible research and should allow for more efficient uptake of metabarcoding data into management decision-making.

Metabarcoding and Metagenomics↗

USGS2023

Toward a national eDNA strategy for the United States

Environmental DNA (eDNA) data make it possible to measure and monitor biodiversity at unprecedented resolution and scale. As use-cases multiply and scientific consensus grows regarding the value of eDNA analysis, public agencies have an opportunity to decide how and where eDNA data fit into their mandates. Within the United States, many federal and state agencies are individually using eDNA data in various applications and developing relevant scientific expertise. A national strategy for eDNA implementation would capitalize on recent scientific developments, providing a common set of next-generation tools for natural resource management and public health protection. Such a strategy would avoid patchwork and possibly inconsistent guidelines in different agencies, smoothing the way for efficient uptake of eDNA data in management. Because eDNA analysis is already in widespread use in both ocean and freshwater settings, we focus here on applications in these environments. However, we foresee the broad adoption of eDNA analysis to meet many resource management issues across the nation because the same tools have immediate terrestrial and aerial applications.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2016

Multi-laboratory survey of qPCR enterococci analysis method performance in U.S. coastal and inland surface waters

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) has become a frequently used technique for quantifying enterococci in recreational surface waters, but there are several methodological options. Here we evaluated how three method permutations, type of mastermix, sample extract dilution and use of controls in results calculation, affect method reliability among multiple laboratories with respect to sample interference. Multiple samples from each of 22 sites representing an array of habitat types were analyzed using EPA Method 1611 and 1609 reagents with full strength and five-fold diluted extracts. The presence of interference was assessed three ways: using sample processing and PCR amplifications controls; consistency of results across extract dilutions; and relative recovery of target genes from spiked enterococci in water sample compared to control matrices with acceptable recovery defined as 50 to 200%. Method 1609, which is based on an environmental mastermix, was found to be superior to Method 1611, which is based on a universal mastermix. Method 1611 had over a 40% control assay failure rate with undiluted extracts and a 6% failure rate with diluted extracts. Method 1609 failed in only 11% and 3% of undiluted and diluted extracts analyses. Use of sample processing control assay results in the delta–delta Ct method for calculating relative target gene recoveries increased the number of acceptable recovery results. Delta–delta tended to bias recoveries from apparent partially inhibitory samples on the high side which could help in avoiding potential underestimates of enterococci — an important consideration in a public health context. Control assay and delta–delta recovery results were largely consistent across the range of habitats sampled, and among laboratories. The methodological option that best balanced acceptable estimated target gene recoveries with method sensitivity and avoidance of underestimated enterococci densities was Method 1609 without extract dilution and using the delta–delta calculation method. The applicability of this method can be extended by the analysis of diluted extracts to sites where interference is indicated but, particularly in these instances, should be confirmed by augmenting the control assays with analyses for target gene recoveries from spiked target organisms.

Journal of Microbiological Methods↗