Literature DB >> 29797549

Minimizing polymerase biases in metabarcoding.

Ruth V Nichols1, Christopher Vollmers2, Lee A Newsom3, Yue Wang4, Peter D Heintzman1,5, McKenna Leighton2, Richard E Green2, Beth Shapiro1.   

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding is an increasingly popular method to characterize and quantify biodiversity in environmental samples. Metabarcoding approaches simultaneously amplify a short, variable genomic region, or "barcode," from a broad taxonomic group via the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), using universal primers that anneal to flanking conserved regions. Results of these experiments are reported as occurrence data, which provide a list of taxa amplified from the sample, or relative abundance data, which measure the relative contribution of each taxon to the overall composition of amplified product. The accuracy of both occurrence and relative abundance estimates can be affected by a variety of biological and technical biases. For example, taxa with larger biomass may be better represented in environmental samples than those with smaller biomass. Here, we explore how polymerase choice, a potential source of technical bias, might influence results in metabarcoding experiments. We compared potential biases of six commercially available polymerases using a combination of mixtures of amplifiable synthetic sequences and real sedimentary DNA extracts. We find that polymerase choice can affect both occurrence and relative abundance estimates and that the main source of this bias appears to be polymerase preference for sequences with specific GC contents. We further recommend an experimental approach for metabarcoding based on results of our synthetic experiments.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; eDNA; environmental DNA; metabarcoding; soil; trnL P6 loop

Year:  2018        PMID: 29797549     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12895

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  26 in total

1.  Diverging landscape impacts on macronutrient status despite overlapping diets in managed (Apis mellifera) and native (Melissodes desponsa) bees.

Authors:  Christina L Mogren; María-Soledad Benítez; Kevin McCarter; Frédéric Boyer; Jonathan G Lundgren
Journal:  Conserv Physiol       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 3.079

2.  Pleistocene Arctic megafaunal ecological engineering as a natural climate solution?

Authors:  Marc Macias-Fauria; Paul Jepson; Nikita Zimov; Yadvinder Malhi
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Comparison of species-specific qPCR and metabarcoding methods to detect small pelagic fish distribution from open ocean environmental DNA.

Authors:  Zeshu Yu; Shin-Ichi Ito; Marty Kwok-Shing Wong; Susumu Yoshizawa; Jun Inoue; Sachihiko Itoh; Ryuji Yukami; Kazuo Ishikawa; Chenying Guo; Minoru Ijichi; Susumu Hyodo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Toward global integration of biodiversity big data: a harmonized metabarcode data generation module for terrestrial arthropods.

Authors:  Paula Arribas; Carmelo Andújar; Kristine Bohmann; Jeremy R deWaard; Evan P Economo; Vasco Elbrecht; Stefan Geisen; Marta Goberna; Henrik Krehenwinkel; Vojtech Novotny; Lucie Zinger; Thomas J Creedy; Emmanouil Meramveliotakis; Víctor Noguerales; Isaac Overcast; Hélène Morlon; Anna Papadopoulou; Alfried P Vogler; Brent C Emerson
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 7.658

Review 5.  Ecosystem-specific microbiota and microbiome databases in the era of big data.

Authors:  Victor Lobanov; Angélique Gobet; Alyssa Joyce
Journal:  Environ Microbiome       Date:  2022-07-16

6.  Quantification of marine benthic communities with metabarcoding.

Authors:  Lise Klunder; Judith D L van Bleijswijk; Loran Kleine Schaars; Henk W van der Veer; Pieternella C Luttikhuizen; Allert I Bijleveld
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 8.678

7.  An efficient and robust laboratory workflow and tetrapod database for larger scale environmental DNA studies.

Authors:  Jan Axtner; Alex Crampton-Platt; Lisa A Hörig; Azlan Mohamed; Charles C Y Xu; Douglas W Yu; Andreas Wilting
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 6.524

8.  Nanopore sequencing of long ribosomal DNA amplicons enables portable and simple biodiversity assessments with high phylogenetic resolution across broad taxonomic scale.

Authors:  Henrik Krehenwinkel; Aaron Pomerantz; James B Henderson; Susan R Kennedy; Jun Ying Lim; Varun Swamy; Juan Diego Shoobridge; Natalie Graham; Nipam H Patel; Rosemary G Gillespie; Stefan Prost
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 6.524

9.  Measuring and mitigating PCR bias in microbiota datasets.

Authors:  Justin D Silverman; Rachael J Bloom; Sharon Jiang; Heather K Durand; Eric Dallow; Sayan Mukherjee; Lawrence A David
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Environmental DNA can act as a biodiversity barometer of anthropogenic pressures in coastal ecosystems.

Authors:  Joseph D DiBattista; James D Reimer; Michael Stat; Giovanni D Masucci; Piera Biondi; Maarten De Brauwer; Shaun P Wilkinson; Anthony A Chariton; Michael Bunce
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.996

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.