PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026BMC Research Notes0 citationsOpen Access

Swab vs rollers: a comparison of methods to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces

View Full Paper
MOMarina Elisa de OliveiraPNPaul NevillMHMieke van der Heyde

Key Points

  • To compare the effectiveness of clinical swabs and mini paint rollers for collecting eDNA from vegetative surfaces.
  • Compared clinical swabs and mini paint rollers in a bushland reserve in Western Australia.
  • Analyzed eDNA diversity from samples collected using both methods.
  • Measured ZOTU richness and community composition between the two approaches.
  • Both methods detected diverse eukaryote communities.
  • No significant differences in ZOTU richness or community composition were found.
  • Paint rollers showed slightly higher cumulative richness, suggesting better sampling area.

Abstract

Environmental DNA can be collected from vegetative surfaces circumventing the need for extensive equipment and multiple visits as often required by other sampling methods. This approach potentially offers a cost-effective and time-efficient means of capturing genetic material that can be used to provide valuable insights into terrestrial biodiversity. However, the effect of the material used to collect the sample is unknown. Here we compare the suitability of both clinical swabs and mini paint rollers to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces in a bushland reserve in Western Australia. Both methods detected diverse eukaryote communities. There were no significant differences in ZOTU richness or community composition between the approaches, although the paint rollers had slightly higher cumulative richness. The choice between the two methods will likely be determined by logistical constraints: paint rollers are more expensive, bigger, and may be more susceptible to contamination but sample a greater surface area and can be readily attached to poles to access difficult to reach areas. Clinical swabs come sterile, are relatively small, and cheaper, but have limited reach and would require modification of poles. Although the sample size was small, results presented here can help guide future surface-based eDNA studies.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Oliveira et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996712d80e1323b05ec057dhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-026-07701-0
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Spider Webs, Soil or Leaf Swabs to Detect Environmental DNA From Terrestrial Vertebrates: What Is the Best Substrate?2025 · 2 citations
  2. 2Meta‐barcoding of ‘dirt’ DNA from soil reflects vertebrate biodiversity2011 · 366 citations
  3. 3Assessment of fungal spores and spore-like diversity in environmental samples by targeted lysis2023 · 23 citations
  4. 4phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data2013 · 23,172 citations
  5. 5Diet of the introduced red fox Vulpes vulpes in Australia: analysis of temporal and spatial patterns2021 · 52 citations