Endpoint PCR coupled with capillary electrophoresis (celPCR) provides sensitive and quantitative measures of environmental DNA in singleplex and multiplex reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of sensitive methods is key for the detection of target taxa, from trace amounts of environmental DNA (eDNA) in a sample. In this context, digital PCR (dPCR) enables direct quantification and is commonly perceived as more sensitive than endpoint PCR. However, endpoint PCR coupled with capillary electrophoresis (celPCR) potentially embodies a viable alternative as it quantitatively measures signal strength in Relative Fluorescence Units (RFU). Provided comparable levels of sensitivity are reached, celPCR permits the development of cost-efficient multiplex PCRs, enabling the simultaneous detection of several target taxa. Here, we compared the sensitivity of singleplex and multiplex celPCR to dPCR for species-specific primer pairs amplifying mitochondrial DNA (COI) of fish species occurring in European freshwaters by analysing dilution series of DNA extracts and field-collected water samples. Both singleplex and multiplex celPCR and dPCR displayed comparable sensitivity with reliable positive amplifications starting at two to 10 target DNA copies per µl DNA extract. celPCR was suitable for quantifying target DNA and direct inference of DNA concentrations from RFU was possible after accounting for primer effects. Furthermore, multiplex celPCRs and dPCRs were successfully used for the detection and quantification of fish-eDNA in field-collected water samples, confirming the results of the dilution series experiment and exemplifying the high sensitivity of the two approaches. The possibility of detection and quantification via multiplex celPCR is appealing for the cost-efficient screening of high sample numbers. The present results confirm the sensitivity of this approach thus enabling its application for future eDNA-based monitoring efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".