Considerations for future environmental DNA accreditation and proficiency testing schemes

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring has revolutionized the way biodiversity is surveyed and has been proposed as a reliable method to inform management decisions. Recognition of eDNA techniques as reliable tools to inform management and biosecurity require stringent standards to assess sample quality and reliability of results. Laboratories can have their workflows assessed and certified through accreditation and be involved in proficiency testing schemes provided to test the accuracy and precision of molecular methods. Currently, there is only one eDNA‐based proficiency testing scheme designed to test competency of laboratories in amplifying eDNA from the Great Crested Newt, Triturus cristatus (Laurenti, 1768) in water samples. This test, however, is a closed scheme currently run by invitation only to laboratories in the United Kingdom. Given the paucity of eDNA‐based proficiency schemes to ensure high‐quality services, this commentary discusses how future proficiency testing schemes could be designed to assess eDNA sample quality and reliability on detection results for environmental management and biosecurity applications. We discuss the use of tissue‐derived and synthetic oligonucleotides as reference materials, the need for proficiency testing schemes to assess the capacity of analytical facilities to determine sample quality as well as accurately detecting trace eDNA in blind samples and discuss the context in which fit for purpose eDNA testing schemes could be designed. To complement the future development of eDNA proficiency testing schemes, we provide firsthand accounts and lessons learned while developing the current Great Crested Newt eDNA proficiency scheme. Lastly, we highlight current limitations in standardizing rapidly improving eDNA‐based techniques and discuss disadvantages to accreditation and standardization from an Australian‐centered perspective as a means to promote an active debate on the topic of future eDNA accreditation and proficiency testing.

Comparison of materials for rapid passive collection of environmental DNA

“…A challenge for employing passive eDNA collection will be finding a standard that can be consistently used so that time series and spatial comparisons are meaningful within and between studies. This challenge similarly exists for conventional eDNA studies (Trujillo-Gonzalez et al, 2021).…”

Capturing marine microbiomes and environmental DNA: A field sampling guide

“…An overarching authority with regard to best practices is needed but it is unclear how it might emerge. Emerging efforts such as the Better Biomolecular Ocean Practices (BeBOP; Table 1 ) are promising in this regard, although a disconnect in time scales between those processes and the pace of technological advancement is a concern ( Trujillo-González et al, 2021 ). We recommend continued efforts in this area with an emphasis on including a diverse array of marine microbiome researchers who collectively hold a vast amount of knowledge, much of which remains anecdotal or unpublished.…”

Environmental DNA and RNA in aquatic community ecology: Toward methodological standardization

“…Although complete methodological standardization may not be feasible or necessary for such rapidly evolving techniques (Trujillo‐González et al, 2021), we recommend the publication of clear protocols for all eNA applications, especially as eRNA emerges as a new technique to monitor ecological communities. These can be published alongside the main paper or uploaded onto data repositories (e.g., Figshare and GitHub).…”