Literature DB >> 29939447

The choice of universal primers and the characteristics of the species mixture determine when DNA metabarcoding can be quantitative.

Josep Piñol1,2, Miquel A Senar1, William O C Symondson3.   

Abstract

DNA metabarcoding is a technique used to survey biodiversity in many ecological settings, but there are doubts about whether it can provide quantitative results, that is, the proportions of each species in the mixture as opposed to a species list. While there are several experimental studies that report quantitative metabarcoding results, there are a similar number that fail to do so. Here, we provide the rationale to understand under what circumstances the technique can be quantitative. In essence, we simulate a mixture of DNA of S species with a defined initial abundance distribution. In the simulated PCR, each species increases its concentration following a certain amplification efficiency. The final DNA concentration will reflect the initial one when the efficiency is similar for all species; otherwise, the initial and final DNA concentrations would be poorly related. Although there are many known factors that modulate amplification efficiency, we focused on the number of primer-template mismatches, arguably the most important one. We used 15 common primers pairs targeting the mitochondrial COI region and the mitogenomes of ca. 1,200 insect species. The results showed that some primers pairs produced quantitative results under most circumstances, whereas some other primers failed to do so. In conclusion, depending on the primer pair used in the PCR amplification and on the characteristics of the mixture analysed (i.e., high species richness, low evenness), DNA metabarcoding can provide a quantitative estimate of the relative abundances of different species.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  COI; diet analysis; environmental DNA; in silico PCR; insects; primer bias

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29939447     DOI: 10.1111/mec.14776

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  29 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparison of traditional and DNA metabarcoding samples for monitoring tropical soil arthropods (Formicidae, Collembola and Isoptera).

Authors:  Yves Basset; Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Michael T G Wright; Anakena M Castillo; David A Donoso; Simon T Segar; Daniel Souto-Vilarós; Dina Y Soliman; Tomas Roslin; M Alex Smith; Greg P A Lamarre; Luis F De León; Thibaud Decaëns; José G Palacios-Vargas; Gabriela Castaño-Meneses; Rudolf H Scheffrahn; Marleny Rivera; Filonila Perez; Ricardo Bobadilla; Yacksecari Lopez; José Alejandro Ramirez Silva; Maira Montejo Cruz; Angela Arango Galván; Héctor Barrios
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Using Malaise Traps and Metabarcoding for Biodiversity Assessment in Vineyards: Effects of Weather and Trapping Effort.

Authors:  Marvin Kaczmarek; Martin H Entling; Christoph Hoffmann
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  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

5.  Combining DNA metabarcoding and ecological networks to inform conservation biocontrol by small vertebrate predators.

Authors:  Vanessa A Mata; Luis P da Silva; Joana Veríssimo; Pedro Horta; Helena Raposeira; Gary F McCracken; Hugo Rebelo; Pedro Beja
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 6.105

6.  Estimation of trophic niches in myrmecophagous spider predators.

Authors:  Lenka Petráková Dušátková; Stano Pekár; Ondřej Michálek; Eva Líznarová; William O C Symondson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Diversity and substrate-specificity of green algae and other micro-eukaryotes colonizing amphibian clutches in Germany, revealed by DNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Sten Anslan; Maria Sachs; Lois Rancilhac; Henner Brinkmann; Jörn Petersen; Sven Künzel; Anja Schwarz; Hartmut Arndt; Ryan Kerney; Miguel Vences
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2021-06-28

8.  Pollen DNA metabarcoding identifies regional provenance and high plant diversity in Australian honey.

Authors:  Liz Milla; Kale Sniderman; Rose Lines; Mahsa Mousavi-Derazmahalleh; Francisco Encinas-Viso
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Deciphering the diet of a wandering spider (Phoneutria boliviensis; Araneae: Ctenidae) by DNA metabarcoding of gut contents.

Authors:  Diego Sierra Ramírez; Giovany Guevara; Lida Marcela Franco Pérez; Arie van der Meijden; Julio César González-Gómez; Juan Carlos Valenzuela-Rojas; Carlos Fernando Prada Quiroga
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.