Systematic evaluation of the influence of Taq enzyme choice and amplification conditions on targeted environmental DNA assay performance and detection in field samples
Neha Acharya‐Patel,Emma T. Groenwold,Michael J. Allison,Caren C. Helbing
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.578
2024-06-20
Environmental DNA
Abstract:Understanding factors that influence targeted eDNA assay performance and detection in field samples, such as Taq DNA polymerase enzyme type and thermocycle protocol, is critical for the interpretation of qPCR results. We completed a systematic performance evaluation of five distinct targeted eDNA assays by subjecting the same samples to analysis by five different Taq enzyme reagent mixes and commonly used 2‐step and 3‐step thermocycle protocols. The results accentuate the necessity of considering assay sensitivity and potential environmental inhibitors in selecting appropriate reaction conditions. Targeted environmental DNA (eDNA) studies mainly rely on quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to amplify extremely low concentrations of DNA present in environmental samples. Understanding factors that influence targeted eDNA assay performance and detection in field samples, such as Taq DNA polymerase enzyme type and thermocycle protocol, is critical for the interpretation of qPCR results. We completed a systematic performance evaluation of five distinct targeted eDNA assays (eANFI6, eFISH1, eANBO5, eGLIN1, and eLICA3 targeting sablefish, general fish, Boreal toad, wood turtle, and the American bullfrog) by subjecting the same samples to analysis by five different Taq enzyme reagent mixes (Immolase, Environmental Master Mix (EMM), Amplitaq, QIAcuity, and QuantiNova) and the commonly used 2‐step (95°C, 60°C) and 3‐step (95°C, 64°C, 72°C) thermocycle protocols. We evaluated assay performance using a standardized dilution series of synthetic dsDNA target sequences and calculated limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) and 95% confidence intervals for each combination of Taq enzyme and thermocycle protocol. All assays performed within acceptable performance criteria as defined by the Canadian national standard for targeted eDNA assays. Based on data generated by synthetic dsDNA fragments, the eDNA assays performed comparably regardless of the enzyme reagent mix and protocol used, except for eANFI6 and eGLIN1 using EMM and the 3‐step protocol, where no amplification was observed. On freshwater field samples, EMM and Immolase performed best. On marine field samples, Immolase, EMM, Qiacuity, and QuantiNova performed equally well, although EMM failed to amplify some samples. The work reveals that an enzyme reaction mix or thermocycle protocol can affect the result of an eDNA assay, but the appropriate choice also depends on the nature of the field sample. It is therefore imperative that these are considered when selecting appropriate reaction conditions and that they are clearly reported.