Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

DNA Metabarcoding from preservative ethanol

ABSTRACT: Have the cake and eat it: Optimizing nondestructive DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate samples for freshwater biomonitoring

PROVIDER: PRJEB31133 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	ERR3197890_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR3197890_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR3197900_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR3197900_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR3197910_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 960

Similar Datasets

Biases in ethanol-based DNA metabarcoding

Project description:Modelling technical and biological biases in macroinvertebrate community assessment from bulk preservative using multiple metabarcoding markers

| PRJEB39471 | ENA

Project description:NW Iberian Freshwater Macroinvertebrate COI Metabarcoding

| PRJNA956464 | ENA

Invertebrate

Project description:DNA metabarcoding of freshwater macroinvertebrate samples

| PRJNA550542 | ENA

Project description:NW Iberian Freshwater Macroinvertebrate COI Metabarcoding II

| PRJNA1073752 | ENA

Automated DNA metabarcoding

Project description:Standardized high-throughput biomonitoring using DNA metabarcoding: Strategies for the adoption of automated liquid handlers

| PRJEB45792 | ENA

Assessing insect biodiversity with automatic light traps in Brazil: Pearls and pitfalls of metabarcoding samples in preservative ethanol.

Project description:Automated species identification based on data produced with metabarcoding offers an alternative for assessing biodiversity of bulk insect samples obtained with traps. We used a standard two-step PCR approach to amplify a 313 bp fragment of the barcoding region of the mitochondrial COI gene. The PCR products were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform, and the OTUs production and taxonomic identifications were performed with a customized pipeline and database. The DNA used in the PCR procedures was extracted directly from the preservative ethanol of bulk insect samples obtained with automatic light traps in 12 sampling areas located in different biomes of Brazil, during wet and dry seasons. Agricultural field and forest edge habitats were collected for all sampling areas. A total of 119 insect OTUs and nine additional OTUs assigned to other arthropod taxa were obtained at a ≥97% sequence similarity level. The alpha and beta diversity analyses comparing biomes, habitats, and seasons were mostly inconclusive, except for a significant difference in beta diversity between biomes. In this study, we were able to metabarcode and HTS adult insects from their preservative medium. Notwithstanding, our results underrepresent the true magnitude of insect diversity expected from samples obtained with automatic light traps in Brazil. Although biological and technical factors might have impacted our results, measures to optimize and standardize eDNA HTS should be in place to improve taxonomic coverage of samples of unknown diversity and stored in suboptimal conditions, which is the case of most eDNA samples.

| S-EPMC7069332 | biostudies-literature

Project description:Macroinvertebrate metabarcoding ScanDNAnet

| PRJNA662474 | ENA

Project description:NW Iberian Freshwater Macroinvertebrate COI Metabarcoding II Water eDNA

| PRJNA1073854 | ENA

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

Project description: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.

| S-EPMC6899807 | biostudies-literature

Project description:Network-based biomonitoring: freshwater food webs, stable isotope analysis, DNA metabarcoding

| PRJNA555584 | ENA