Environmental nucleic acids: A field‐based comparison for monitoring freshwater habitats using <scp>eDNA</scp> and <scp>eRNA</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleic acids released by organisms and isolated from environmental substrates are increasingly being used for molecular biomonitoring. While environmental DNA (eDNA) has received much attention, the potential of environmental RNA as a biomonitoring tool remains under-explored. Several recent studies using paired DNA and RNA metabarcoding of bulk samples suggest that RNA might better reflect "metabolically active" parts of the community. However, such studies mainly capture organismal eDNA and eRNA. For larger eukaryotes, isolation of extra-organismal RNA will be important, but viability needs to be examined in a field-based setting. In this study we evaluate (a) whether extra-organismal eRNA release from macroeukaryotes can be detected given its supposedly rapid degradation, and (b) if the same field collection methods for eDNA can be applied to eRNA. We collected eDNA and eRNA from water in lakes where fish community composition is well documented, enabling a comparison between the two nucleic acids in two different seasons with monitoring using conventional methods. We found that eRNA is released from macroeukaryotes and can be filtered from water and metabarcoded in a similar manner as eDNA to reliably provide species composition information. eRNA had a small but significantly greater true positive rate than eDNA, indicating that it correctly detects more species known to exist in the lakes. Given relatively small differences between the two molecules in describing fish community composition, we conclude that if eRNA provides significant advantages in terms of lability, it is a strong candidate to add to the suite of molecular monitoring tools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".