Literature DB >> 29802793

Towards robust and repeatable sampling methods in eDNA-based studies.

Ian A Dickie1,2, Stephane Boyer3,4, Hannah L Buckley5, Richard P Duncan6, Paul P Gardner2, Ian D Hogg7,8, Robert J Holdaway9, Gavin Lear10, Andreas Makiola1, Sergio E Morales11, Jeff R Powell12, Louise Weaver13.   

Abstract

DNA-based techniques are increasingly used for measuring the biodiversity (species presence, identity, abundance and community composition) of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. While there are numerous reviews of molecular methods and bioinformatic steps, there has been little consideration of the methods used to collect samples upon which these later steps are based. This represents a critical knowledge gap, as methodologically sound field sampling is the foundation for subsequent analyses. We reviewed field sampling methods used for metabarcoding studies of both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem biodiversity over a nearly three-year period (n = 75). We found that 95% (n = 71) of these studies used subjective sampling methods and inappropriate field methods and/or failed to provide critical methodological information. It would be possible for researchers to replicate only 5% of the metabarcoding studies in our sample, a poorer level of reproducibility than for ecological studies in general. Our findings suggest greater attention to field sampling methods, and reporting is necessary in eDNA-based studies of biodiversity to ensure robust outcomes and future reproducibility. Methods must be fully and accurately reported, and protocols developed that minimize subjectivity. Standardization of sampling protocols would be one way to help to improve reproducibility and have additional benefits in allowing compilation and comparison of data from across studies.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  contamination; environmental DNA; experimental design; metabarcoding; metadata; sampling

Year:  2018        PMID: 29802793     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12907

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


  9 in total

1.  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 2.  Potential of Meta-Omics to Provide Modern Microbial Indicators for Monitoring Soil Quality and Securing Food Production.

Authors:  Christophe Djemiel; Samuel Dequiedt; Battle Karimi; Aurélien Cottin; Walid Horrigue; Arthur Bailly; Ali Boutaleb; Sophie Sadet-Bourgeteau; Pierre-Alain Maron; Nicolas Chemidlin Prévost-Bouré; Lionel Ranjard; Sébastien Terrat
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 6.064

Review 3.  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

4.  Perspectives on the Impact of Sampling Design and Intensity on Soil Microbial Diversity Estimates.

Authors:  Syrie M Hermans; Hannah L Buckley; Gavin Lear
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Global marine biodiversity in the context of achieving the Aichi Targets: ways forward and addressing data gaps.

Authors:  Hanieh Saeedi; James Davis Reimer; Miriam I Brandt; Philippe-Olivier Dumais; Anna Maria Jażdżewska; Nicholas W Jeffery; Peter M Thielen; Mark John Costello
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Tourmaline: A containerized workflow for rapid and iterable amplicon sequence analysis using QIIME 2 and Snakemake.

Authors:  Luke R Thompson; Sean R Anderson; Paul A Den Uyl; Nastassia V Patin; Shen Jean Lim; Grant Sanderson; Kelly D Goodwin
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 7.658

7.  Comparison of materials for rapid passive collection of environmental DNA.

Authors:  Cindy Bessey; Yuan Gao; Yen Bach Truong; Haylea Miller; Simon Neil Jarman; Oliver Berry
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 8.678

8.  Grab what you can-an evaluation of spatial replication to decrease heterogeneity in sediment eDNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Jon T Hestetun; Anders Lanzén; Thomas G Dahlgren
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Watered-down biodiversity? A comparison of metabarcoding results from DNA extracted from matched water and bulk tissue biomonitoring samples.

Authors:  Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Teresita M Porter; Chloe V Robinson; Donald J Baird; Shadi Shokralla; Michael T G Wright
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.