Trujillo-González Alejandro, Thuo David N, Divi Uday, Sparks Kate, Wallenius Thomas, Gleeson Dianne
EcoDNA Group, Centre for Conservation Ecology and Genomics, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Biosecurity Strategy and Reform Division, Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Front Insect Sci. 2022 Feb 11;2:795379. doi: 10.3389/finsc.2022.795379. eCollection 2022.
Khapra beetle, Everts, 1898, is a serious pest of stored grain products globally. Environmental DNA (eDNA)-based methods offer sensitive detection tools used to inform biosecurity officers on the presence of high-risk pests. This study tested laboratory and portable molecular technologies to detect khapra beetle environmental DNA extracted from dust samples collected during biosecurity responses (Tuggeranong and Fyshwick) to khapra beetle incursions in Australia. Airborne and floor dust samples were collected opportunistically using handheld vacuum cleaners and eDNA was extracted using either field or laboratory-based extraction methods and analyzed using laboratory benchtop real time PCR machines and portable machines with two TaqMan and one LAMP-based assay. We successfully collected, extracted, and amplified khapra beetle eDNA from dust samples by qPCR, but failed to amplify eDNA using LAMP. The Laboratory qPCR machine showed significantly higher mean Ct values ( < 0.001) and significantly higher positive detections for both assays ( < 0.001) compared to the portable thermocycler. DNA yield was significantly higher in samples extracted using laboratory-based kits compared to field kits ( < 0.001) for both vacuumed and airborne samples (Mean DNA ± S.D. = 5.52 ± 4.45 and 4.77 ± 1.68 ng/μL, respectively), compared to field kits, (1.75 ± 1.17 and 1.36± 1.29 ng/μL for vacuumed and airborne samples, respectively). There were no significant differences in DNA yield between collection methods or differences in amplification associated to extraction or collection methods in either platform tested in this study. Portable technologies tested in this study (Franklin™ Real Time Thermocycler and Genie III) accurately amplified all tissue derived DNA during assay optimisation and field testing, highlighting the capacity of these technologies to complement biosecurity in confirming specimen ID. There was a high incidence of positive detections in field negative controls (Tuggeranong = 12.3 % and Fyshwick = 50 %), mostly attributed to the use of contaminated vacuum cleaners. We discuss suitable methods to minimize sample cross-contamination, the potential of portable molecular technologies as tools for biosecurity applications, and the suitability of eDNA-based molecular detection methods to complement global trade biosecurity for one of the most invasive and important grain pests worldwide.
谷斑皮蠹(Everts,1898年)是全球储存谷物产品的一种严重害虫。基于环境DNA(eDNA)的方法提供了灵敏的检测工具,可用于告知生物安全官员高风险害虫的存在情况。本研究测试了实验室和便携式分子技术,以检测从澳大利亚应对谷斑皮蠹入侵(图格拉农和菲什维克)期间收集的灰尘样本中提取的谷斑皮蠹环境DNA。使用手持式吸尘器随机收集空气传播和地面灰尘样本,并使用基于现场或实验室的提取方法提取eDNA,然后使用实验室台式实时荧光定量PCR仪和配备两种TaqMan和一种基于环介导等温扩增(LAMP)检测方法的便携式仪器进行分析。我们通过定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)成功从灰尘样本中收集、提取并扩增了谷斑皮蠹eDNA,但使用LAMP未能扩增出eDNA。与便携式热循环仪相比,实验室qPCR仪显示两种检测方法的平均荧光定量值(Ct值)显著更高(<0.001),阳性检测率也显著更高(<0.001)。对于吸尘和空气传播样本,使用基于实验室的试剂盒提取的样本中的DNA产量显著高于基于现场的试剂盒(<0.001)(平均DNA±标准差分别为5.52±4.45和4.77±1.68 ng/μL),而基于现场的试剂盒分别为(吸尘和空气传播样本分别为1.75±1.17和1.36±1.29 ng/μL)。在本研究测试的任何一个平台中,收集方法之间的DNA产量没有显著差异,提取或收集方法与扩增之间也没有差异。本研究中测试的便携式技术(富兰克林™实时热循环仪和精灵III)在检测方法优化和现场测试期间准确扩增了所有组织来源的DNA,突出了这些技术在确认样本身份方面补充生物安全的能力。现场阴性对照中的阳性检测发生率很高(图格拉农=12.3%,菲什维克=50%),主要归因于使用了受污染的吸尘器。我们讨论了将样本交叉污染降至最低的合适方法、便携式分子技术作为生物安全应用工具的潜力,以及基于eDNA的分子检测方法对全球贸易生物安全补充的适用性,以应对全球最具侵入性和重要的谷物害虫之一。