fundamentals of eDNA

This week we discussed DNA collection and extraction methods and three words that I feel encompass the gist of our class discussions are compatibility, consistency, and standardization. These three words are linked and become important in the context of eDNA research as scientists need to figure out the level of standardization required to give their research meaning and make it consistent enough with previous work to add to historic data sets.

What I got out of our class discussion from Monday is that it is very difficult to standardize eDNA protocols. I’ve come across this personally as I work with several labs and have gotten shocked faces when I explain to one lab how things are done in the other. It definitely made it frustrating at times as I felt like I was always playing catch up trying to figure out the ‘right way’. However, as we discussed in class a lot of what defines the ‘right way’ has to do with personal preference, accessible equipment, budget limits as well as knowledge about the natural history of the organism and the surrounding environment. I agree that a certain level of flexibility is required to account for differences, but I think it might be possible to have standardization in certain areas such as sterilization, storage and blank methods as we discussed.

These three words also tied into our discussion from Wednesday as both papers were older so we could see how methods have changed in the past few years, and discuss how it is still possible to use slightly outdated data sets in present day research. I hadn’t really thought about this being an issue before but especially in a field where new protocols are constantly arising it is to be expected that methods might have to change halfway through a project. If it comes to that scientists have to decide if it is overall more efficient to stick with the older method so historic data is not lost or to make the shift and lose compatibility between data sets. In that case, with a little bit of work. statistics can be performed to be able to analyze both sets. I think these papers also just emphasize the importance of individual labs performing pilot studies at the beginning of their research to determine what protocol works best for them and not just go based off of what the literature says.