Dataset Information

Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches.

ABSTRACT: DNA metabarcoding allows the analysis of insect communities faster and more efficiently than ever before. However, metabarcoding can be conducted through several approaches, and the consistency of results across methods has rarely been studied. We compare the results obtained by DNA metabarcoding of the same communities using two different markers - COI and 16S - and three different sampling methods: (a) homogenized Malaise trap samples (homogenate), (b) preservative ethanol from the same samples, and (c) soil samples. Our results indicate that COI and 16S offer partly complementary information on Malaise trap samples, with each marker detecting a significant number of species not detected by the other. Different sampling methods offer highly divergent estimates of community composition. The community recovered from preservative ethanol of Malaise trap samples is significantly different from that recovered from homogenate. Small and weakly sclerotized insects tend to be overrepresented in ethanol while strong and large taxa are overrepresented in homogenate. For soil samples, highly degenerate COI primers pick up large amounts of nontarget DNA and only 16S provides adequate analyses of insect diversity. However, even with 16S, very little overlap in molecular operational taxonomic unit (MOTU) content was found between the trap and the soil samples. Our results demonstrate that none of the tested sampling approaches is satisfactory on its own. For instance, DNA extraction from preservative ethanol is not a valid replacement for destructive bulk extraction but a complement. In future metabarcoding studies, both should ideally be used together to achieve comprehensive representation of the target community.

SUBMITTER: Marquina D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6899807 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches.

Marquina Daniel D Esparza-Salas Rodrigo R Roslin Tomas T Ronquist Fredrik F

Molecular ecology resources 20190918 6

DNA metabarcoding allows the analysis of insect communities faster and more efficiently than ever before. However, metabarcoding can be conducted through several approaches, and the consistency of results across methods has rarely been studied. We compare the results obtained by DNA metabarcoding of the same communities using two different markers - COI and 16S - and three different sampling methods: (a) homogenized Malaise trap samples (homogenate), (b) preservative ethanol from the same sample ...[more]

PMID: 31379089

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSmall and rare specimens can remain undetected when metabarcoding is applied on bulk samples with a high specimen size heterogeneity. This is especially critical for Malaise trap samples, where most of the biodiversity is contributed by small taxa with low biomass. The separation of samples in different size fractions for downstream analysis is one possibility to increase detection of small and rare taxa. However, experiments systematically testing different size sorting approaches and subsequent proportional pooling of fractions are lacking, but would provide important information for the optimization of metabarcoding protocols. We set out to find a size sorting strategy for Malaise trap samples that maximizes taxonomic recovery but remains scalable and time efficient.MethodsThree Malaise trap samples were sorted into four size classes using dry sieving. Each fraction was homogenized and lysed. The corresponding lysates were pooled to simulate unsorted samples. Pooling was additionally conducted in equal proportions and in four different proportions enriching the small size fraction of samples. DNA from the individual size classes as well as the pooled fractions was extracted and metabarcoded using the FwhF2 and Fol-degen-rev primer set. Additionally, alternative wet sieving strategies were explored.ResultsThe small size fractions harboured the highest diversity and were best represented when pooling in favour of small specimens. Metabarcoding of unsorted samples decreases taxon recovery compared to size sorted samples. A size separation into only two fractions (below 4 mm and above) can double taxon recovery compared to not size sorting. However, increasing the sequencing depth 3- to 4-fold can also increase taxon recovery to levels comparable with size sorting, but remains biased towards biomass rich taxa in the sample.ConclusionWe demonstrate that size fractionation of Malaise trap bulk samples can increase taxon recovery. While results show distinct patterns, the lack of statistical support due to the limited number of samples processed is a limitation. Due to increased speed and lower risk of cross-contamination as well as specimen damage we recommend wet sieving and proportional pooling of the lysates in favour of the small size fraction (80-90% volume). However, for large-scale projects with time constraints, increasing sequencing depth is an alternative solution.

Project description:With increased application of DNA metabarcoding in biodiversity assessment, various laboratory protocols have been optimized, and their further evaluation is subject of current research. Homogenization of bulk samples and subsequent DNA extraction from a subsample of destructed tissue is a common first stage of the metabarcoding process. This can either be conducted using sample material soaked in a storage fixative, e.g., ethanol (here referred to as "wet" treatment) or from dried individuals ("dry"). However, it remains uncertain if perfect mixing and equal distribution of DNA within the tube is ensured during homogenization and to what extent incomplete mixing and resulting variations in tissue composition affect diversity assessments if only a fraction of the destructed sample is processed in the downstream metabarcoding workflow. Here we investigated the efficiency of homogenization under wet and dry conditions and tested how variations in destructed tissue composition might affect diversity assessments of complex arthropod samples. We considered five time intervals of Malaise trap bulk samples and process nine different subsamples of homogenized tissue (20 mg each) in both treatments. Results indicate a more consistent diversity assessment from dried material, but at the cost of a higher processing time. Both approaches detected comparable OTU diversity and revealed similar taxa compositions in a single tissue extraction. With an increased number of tissue subsamples during DNA extraction, OTU diversity increased for both approaches, especially for highly diverse samples obtained during the summer. Here, particularly the detection of small and low-biomass taxa increased. The processing of multiple subsamples in the metabarcoding protocol can therefore be a helpful procedure to enhance diversity estimates and counteract taxonomic bias in biodiversity assessments. However, the process induces higher costs and time effort and the application in large-scale biodiversity assessment, e.g., in monitoring schemes needs to be considered on project-specific prospects.

Dataset Information

Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches.

Publications

Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets