Reflection - Wk7
This week’s class covered next generation sequencing and general primers and a student-led discussion covering Collins et al.’s 2019 paper “Non‐specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI”. I missed the student discussion due to conducting field work with my classmates for our group project. I found the ending conclusion from Collins et al.’s paper not only interesting, but also an opportunity for researchers to contribute to or work toward building better reference libraries: “Environmental DNA techniques could potentially be the default survey methodology for aquatic ecosystems, but the existing gap between recovered genotypes and their corresponding phenotypic and historical data can only be filled with substantially more comprehensive reference libraries” (p. 1997). The authors mentioned that “recollection of specimens” is not required because of the availability of better techniques (e.g., “low coverage genome skimming”) which works with tissue collections including those preserved in ethanol. That compatibility will save time, effort, and the lives of animals (p. 1997).
During our lecture I appreciated the explanations and discussions of next generation sequencing and general primers. I thought the breakout session asking us to consider “what types of [eDNA] questions would you like to answer” was super interesting because it conveys some common themes circulating among researchers such as quantifying species abundance, larval diets, seasonal/spatial regime changes. One of the groups wrote: “ghost diet items,” which piqued my curiosity. What are they? Do they have something to do with the group’s prior question: “What are larval fish eating?” Inquiring minds want to know!