$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
In designing a species-specific qPCR assay for the mucket (A. ligamentina), available sequences of all Unionidae species in the Clinch river were downloaded. Closely related species such as Lampsilis siliquoidea were also included in the reference database even though they are not found in the same river. Not all species in the river system of interest were found in GenBank, so additional species were sequenced in house. Sequences were aligned using Geneious software and Primer Quest (IDT) software was used to design multiple assays. Five sets of primers and probe were added to the alignment for visual assessment (Figure 2). They were then tested in silico using Primer-Blast, after which they were ordered for further testing in vitro. In the laboratory, all assays were tested using DNA extractions of 27 available species to verify specificity. One assay (A.lig.1) successfully amplified only the target species (Table 1; Table 2). This assay moved forward for further testing of assay efficiency, LOD and LOQ. It has an amplicon length of 121 base pairs. Table 3 shows the sequence used for the A. ligamentina synthetic DNA standard. Figure 3A and Figure 3B show the results of a successful assay with good efficiency and r2 values. Figure 3C and Figure 3D show an assay whose standard curve has a poor efficiency; this assay was discarded. The LOD and LOQ for the selected assay (A.lig.1) were both found to be 5.00 copies/reaction using the discrete method described in Klymus et al5. The IPC that was multiplexed with the assay (Tables 3-6) did not affect the A. ligamentina assay’s standard curve. The IPC we use is a fragment of the mouse HemT transcript. This assay was predesigned by IDT for another application, but we modified its use as an IPC for our lab’s eDNA applications.
A successful qPCR run should meet certain criteria for each measure of performance (i.e., standard curve amplification, genomic DNA positive control, no template control and internal positive control). The target assay standards should have exponential amplification curves. These curves should reach an end point plateau if allowed to run enough cycles. This is indicative of the fluorescent probe being completely consumed during the reaction, and fluorescence levels reaching a maximum limit. Later amplifying standards may not reach a plateau in 40 cycles. The positive controls (genomic DNA and IPC) should have the same pattern. Unknowns may or may not amplify, but amplification in unknowns should also have an exponential pattern and an endpoint plateau (Figure 5).
In a quality qPCR, the standard dilutions amplify at evenly spaced Cq of approximately every 3.3 cycles for each 10-fold difference in concentration. Each replicate of a standard dilution amplifies in a tightly grouped manner having nearly the same Cq (represented by the r2 values). All standard dilutions should exhibit amplification (Figure 3A). In a poor qPCR, standards may exhibit non-exponential shape, uneven variation in Cq values between dilutions, not come to an endpoint plateau, or some dilutions may not amplify at all (Figure 3D).
The important parameters for a standard curve are efficiency, r2, slope, and y-intercept. Efficiency should fall between 90%-110% with ideal values near 100% and r2 values should be above 0.98 with ideal results approaching 1.015,22. Slope values should be between -3.2 and -3.5 with ideal results near -3.322. The y-intercept values should fall between a Cq of 34-41 with ideal results having a Cq of 37.0. The y-intercept is the predicted Cq of a reaction with 1 copy of the target sequence, the smallest unit that can be measured in a single qPCR. Unknowns with Cq’s greater than the y-intercept are likely to be inhibited. Running greater than 40 cycles of PCR may be necessary to detect the target in case of inhibition or an inefficient primer set, however quantification is not possible under these circumstances and additional negative controls without the target sequence, but containing total DNA similar to the unknowns, should be run to rule out amplification from non-specific sources.
The Internal Positive Control (IPC) amplification in unknown samples should be compared to the results of the negative template control IPC, as there is no competition for reagents and no inhibitors are present. Unknowns with an IPC having a Cq of 2 cycles or greater than the average Cq value of the NTC, or that do not amplify should be considered inhibited. If no inhibitors are present in the samples, then all IPC amplification should have a tight grouping in the plot with Cq values near the same as the NTC (Figure 6).
Finally, in situ testing of the assay occurred. Twenty water samples from the Clinch River and three field blank sample were filtered between September 25-26, 2019 within 500 meters from a mussel bed known to have A. ligamentina. Approximately four 1 L samples of water were filtered per sampling location. Location sites included at the bottom of the mussel bed in stream, bottom of the mussel bed near shore, 100 m downstream of the bed in stream, 500 m downstream of the bed in stream and 500 m downstream of the bed near shore (Figure 7). Back in the laboratory, each filter was cut in half and DNA was extracted from only half of a filter. The remaining filter half for each sample was stored in a -80 °C freezer. Samples were then run using the A.lig.1 assay multiplexed with the IPC. Of the 23 samples, five were found to be inhibited. These samples were diluted 1:10 and dilutions were re-run. Nineteen of the 20 field samples amplified using the designed assay. Of these 19 samples, five were above the assay’s LOD and LOQ of 5 copies/reaction; meaning most of the samples had an eDNA detection but at a level where false negative results are likely to occur and that the assay could not confidently quantify the copy number for those 14 samples. Nevertheless, 75 to 100% of the four biological site replicates amplified at each sampling location. Two of the three field blanks were negative, while one field blank did show amplification, emphasizing the importance of clean technique in the field.

Figure 1: Workflow for mitochondrial DNA sequence database construction.Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Sequence alignments for Clinch river mussel species with prospective primers and probes for the Actinonaias ligamentina ND1 assay. Forward primers in dark green, probe in red and reverse primer in light green. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Standard curve and linear regression examples. A. Example of an acceptable standard curve derived from the amplification of three replicates each of six standard dilutions. A 10-fold standard dilution series with the highest concentration of the standard on the left, with decreasing concentrations moving to the right. The horizontal line crossing all the traces is the threshold for cycle at quantitation (Cq). Where each trace crosses this threshold is where the Cq is determined. B. Linear regression made from the standard replicates of Figure 3A. Replicates of the standard dilutions are plotted in circles and the unknowns (samples) are plotted with x’s. The efficiency is 98.9%, r2 approaching 1.0, and slope of -3.349. C. Example of a poor standard curve derived from the amplification of three replicates each of six standard dilutions. D. A linear regression forming the standard curve for the standard replicates amplified in example 3C. Note the poor efficiency and r2 values. Also note that only 4 of the 6 standards amplified. If after repeat runs, the standard curve does not improve, the problem may be with a poor primer/probe set that does not amplify target DNA as expected in which case, this assay should not be considered. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Examples of plate setups for LOD and LOQ standard qPCR runs. Standards used in the curve are in blue, standard concentration decreases from dark to light blue. DNA positive control in green and no template control (NTC) in yellow. Experimental standard concentrations in grey showing 24 replicates for each standard dilution. The dilution series was plated across two plates (A, B), each with a standard curve, positive control, and NTC. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Plate setup and amplification traces from a qPCR run. A. Plate setup, standards shown in blue, darker color indicating the highest the concentration of the standard. DNA positive control in green, no template controls in yellow (NTC), sample targets in grey. B. Amplification traces from a qPCR run. Standards shown in blue, DNA positive control in green, no template controls in yellow, and unknowns in red. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Amplification traces for the Internal Positive Control (IPC). IPC traces for all unknown samples in magenta and the IPC from the no template controls (NTCs) shown in orange with triangles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Map showing the eDNA collection sites of a mussel bed in the Clinch River along the Virginia/Tennessee border. Samples were collected at Wallens Bend at the bottom of the bed, 100 m downstream of the bed, and 500 m downstream of the bed. Sites were either collected in the middle of the stream (in stream) or roughly 1 – 2 meters from the shoreline (shore). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Component | Name | Sequence 5’ – 3’ | Fluorescent label |
| Forward Primer | A.lig.1-f | CCCTCATCACGTACCTCTTAATC | |
| Reverse Primer | A.lig.1-r | GGAATGCCCATAATTCCAACTTTA | |
| Probe | A.lig.1 probe | TTCTTGAACGTAAAGCCCTCGGGT | FAM |
Table 1: The designed Actinonaias ligamentina qPCR assay (A.lig.1) including sequences for the forward and reverse primers and the probe.
| Species | Amplified | In the Clinch River |
| 1. Actinonaias ligamentina | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Actinonaias pectorosa | No | Yes |
| 3. Amblema plicata | No | Yes |
| 4. Corbicula spp. | No | Yes |
| 5. Cumberlandia monodonta | No | Yes |
| 6. Cyclonaias tuberculata | No | Yes |
| 7. Cyprogenia stegaria | No | Yes |
| 8. Elliptio dilatata | No | Yes |
| 9. Epioblasma brevidens | No | Yes |
| 10. Epioblasma capsaeformis | No | Yes |
| 11. Epioblasma florentina aureola | No | Yes |
| 12. Epioblasma triquetra | No | Yes |
| 13. Fusconaia cor | No | Yes |
| 14. Fusconaia subrotunda | No | Yes |
| 15. Lampsilis ovata | No | Yes |
| 16. Lampsilis siliquoidea | No | No |
| 17. Lasmigona costata | No | Yes |
| 18. Lemiox rimosus | No | Yes |
| 19. Lexingtonia dolabelloides | No | Yes |
| 20. Medionidus conradicus | No | Yes |
| 21. Plethobasus cyphyus | No | Yes |
| 22. Pleurobema plenum | No | Yes |
| 23. Ptychobranchus fasciolaris | No | Yes |
| 24. Ptychobranchus subtentus | No | Yes |
| 25. Quadrula pustulosa | No | Yes |
| 26. Strophitus undulatus | No | Yes |
| 27. Villosa iris | No | Yes |
Table 2: A list of species used for the in vitro specificity testing of the A.lig.1 assay. The assay amplified genomic DNA of the target (Actinonaias ligamentina) and did not amplify any of the non-target species.
| Component | Sequence 5’-3’ |
| Actinonaias ligementina standard | CCCTCATCACGTACCTCTTAATCCTATTAGGTGTCGCATTTTTCACTCTTCTTGAACGTA |
| AAGCCCTCGGGTACTTTCAAATCCGAAAAGGCCCAAATAAAGTTGGAATTATGGGCATTC |
| CCCAACCATTAGCAGATGCTCTAAAGCTCTTCGTAAAAGAATGAGTAACACCAACCTCCT |
| CAAACTACCTACCCTTCATCTTAACCCCAACCACTATGTTAATTTTAGCACTTAGACTTT |
| GACAATTATTTCCATCCTTTATANTATCATCCCAAATANTTTTTGGTATGCTCCTATTCT |
| TGTGTATCTCCTCCCTAGCTGTTTATACAACACTTATAACAGGCTGAGCCTCAAACTCCA |
| AATATGCCCTTTTAGGAGCTATTCGAGCCATAGCCCAAACCATTTCTTATGAGGTTACAA |
| TAAC |
|
|
| IPC template (Hem-T) | CTACATAAGTAACACCTTCTCATGTCCAAAGCTCTCTGAGTGTCCCTCGAATCTCAGACGCT |
| GTATGACAGTCTCCTTTCGTGTGAACATTCGGCTGCTCTATGTTCTCAAGGACTGCAC |
|
Table 3: Sequence (5’-3’) of the Actinonaias ligamentina standard and the IPC template (Hem-T) used for this assay. The sequence for the forward and reverse primers are in bold and italics, and that of the probe is underlined.
| Component | Name | Sequence 5’ – 3’ | Fluorescent label |
| Forward Primer | HemT-F | TCTGAGTGTCCCTCGAATCT | |
| Reverse Primer | HemT-R | GCAGTCCTTGAGAACATAGAGC | |
| Probe | HemT-P | TGACAGTCTCCTTTCGTGTGAACATTCG | Cy5 |
Table 4: The Internal Positive Control (IPC) assay including sequences for the forward and reverse primers and the probe.
| Volume per sample (µL) | Component |
| 10 | Environmental Master Mix |
| 1 | 20uM A. lig.1 F/R mix |
| 1 | 2.5uM A. lig.1 probe |
| 1 | 5uM IPC primer mix (HemT-F/ R) |
| 0.75 | 2.5uM IPC probe (HemT-P) |
| 1.5 | 1 X 103 concentration of the IPC template |
| 2.75 | H20 |
| 2 | Sample |
| 20 | Total Volume |
Table 5: The PCR mix used for the A.lig.1 assay multiplexed with the IPC assay.
| Step | | Temperature (°C ) | Time |
| 1 | Initial Denature | 95 | 10 min |
| 2 | Denature | 95 | 15 sec |
| 3 | Annealing | 60 | 1 min |
| 4 | Go to Step 2, repeat 39X | | |
Table 6: Reaction conditions for the A.lig.1 assay.