EvoHull Publications

[content_boxes layout=”icon-on-side” iconcolor=”” circlecolor=”” circlebordercolor=”” backgroundcolor=””]

[content_box title=”Dr Bernd Haenfling” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″ link=”http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=rfJ3qhcAAAAJ” linktarget=”_blank” linktext=”Google Scholar citations” animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″]Conservation genetics and genomics of freshwater fishes, eDNA and metabarcoding and the dynamics of biological invasions in freshwaters [/content_box]

[content_box title=”Dr Africa Gomez” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″ link=”http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oHzhVGwAAAAJ” linktarget=”_blank” linktext=”Google Scholar citations” animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″]Population genetics, phylogeography and the evolution of reproductive modes [/content_box]

[/content_boxes]

[content_boxes layout=”icon-on-side” iconcolor=”” circlecolor=”” circlebordercolor=”” backgroundcolor=””]

[content_box title=”Dr Domino Joyce” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″ link=”http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=BIGSVc4AAAAJ” linktarget=”_blank” linktext=”Google Scholar citations” animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″]Mechanisms shaping biodiversity, selection at individual loci, behavioural aspects of mate preference population divergence, and the genomic processes involved in adaptive radiations [/content_box]

[content_box title=”Dr Lori Lawson Handley” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″ link=”http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=lori+lawson+handley&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=” linktarget=”_blank” linktext=”Google Scholar citations” animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″]The evolutionary causes and consequences of dispersal, and the factors driving the evolution of sex chromosomes [/content_box]

[/content_boxes]

[content_boxes layout=”icon-on-side” iconcolor=”” circlecolor=”” circlebordercolor=”” backgroundcolor=””]

[content_box title=”Dr Dave Lunt” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″ link=”http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=rAZT3w0AAAAJ” linktarget=”_blank” linktext=”Google Scholar citations” animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″]Comparative genomics, large scale phylogenetics, molecular evolution, and population genetics. [/content_box]

[content_box title=”” icon=”user” image=”” image_width=”35″ image_height=”35″  animation_type=”0″ animation_direction=”down” animation_speed=”0.1″][/content_box]

[/content_boxes]

EvoHull Pubmed feed

pubmed: (lunt dh[au]) or ((h...

NCBI: db=pubmed; Term=(lunt dh[AU]) OR ((hanfling b[AU]) OR (Hänfling B[AU])) OR (Lawson Handley[Author]) OR ((Gomez A[Author]) AND Hull[Affiliation]) OR ((Joyce DA[Author]) AND Hull[Affiliation])

Related Articles

The effect of filtration method on the efficiency of environmental DNA capture and quantification via metabarcoding.

Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 May 16;:

Authors: Li J, Lawson Handley LJ, Read DS, Hänfling B

Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a promising tool for rapid and non-invasive biodiversity monitoring. eDNA density is low in environmental samples, and a capture method, such as filtration, is often required to concentrate eDNA for downstream analyses. In this study, six treatments, with differing filter types and pore sizes for eDNA capture, were compared for their efficiency and accuracy to assess fish community structure with known fish abundance and biomass via eDNA metabarcoding. Our results showed that different filters (with the exception of 20 μm large-pore filters) were broadly consistent in their DNA capture ability. The 0.45 μm filters performed the best in terms of total DNA yield, probability of species detection, repeatability within pond and consistency between ponds. However performance of 0.45 μm filters were only marginally better than for 0.8 μm filters, while filtration time was significantly longer. Given this trade-off, the 0.8 μm filter is the optimal pore size of membrane filter for turbid, eutrophic and high fish density ponds analysed here. The 0.45 μm Sterivex enclosed filters performed reasonably well and are suitable in situations where on-site filtration is required. Finally, pre-filters are applied only if absolutely essential for reducing the filtration time or increasing the throughput volume of the capture filters. In summary, we found encouraging similarity in the results obtained from different filtration methods, but the optimal pore size of filter or filter type might strongly depend on the water type under study. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PMID: 29766663 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]