Literature DB >> 30485662

Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection.

Adam Koziol1, Michael Stat1,2, Tiffany Simpson1, Simon Jarman1,3, Joseph D DiBattista1,4, Euan S Harvey5, Michael Marnane6, Justin McDonald7, Michael Bunce1.   

Abstract

Effective biomonitoring is critical for driving management outcomes that ensure long-term sustainability of the marine environment. In recent years, environmental DNA (eDNA), coupled with metabarcoding methodologies, has emerged as a promising tool for generating biotic surveys of marine ecosystems, including those under anthropogenic pressure. However, more empirical data are needed on how to best implement eDNA field sampling approaches to maximize their utility for each specific application. The effect of the substrate chosen for eDNA sampling on the diversity of marine taxa detected by DNA metabarcoding has not yet been systematically analysed, despite aquatic systems being those most commonly targeted for eDNA studies. We investigated the effect of four commonly used eDNA substrates to explore taxonomic diversity: (a) surface water, (b) marine sediment, (c) settlement plates and (d) planktonic tows. With a focus on coastal ports, 332 eDNA samples from Australia (Indian and Southern oceans) and Kazakhstan (Caspian Sea) were collected and analysed by multi-assay DNA metabarcoding. Across study locations, between 30% and 52% of eukaryotic families detected were unique to a particular substrate and <6% of families were found in all four substrates. Taxonomic composition varied significantly depending on the substrate sampled implying that the suitability (and bias) of an eDNA substrate will depend on the focal taxa. These findings demonstrate that single substrate eDNA metabarcoding likely underestimates the total eukaryotic diversity. Future eDNA experimental design should consider incorporating multiple substrates or select substrate(s) best suited to the specific detection of target taxa.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  amplicon sequencing; biodiversity; biomonitoring; environmental sampling

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30485662     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12971

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


  11 in total

1.  Metabarcoding Malaise traps and soil eDNA reveals seasonal and local arthropod diversity shifts.

Authors:  Ameli Kirse; Sarah J Bourlat; Kathrin Langen; Vera G Fonseca
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Digging for DNA at depth: rapid universal metabarcoding surveys (RUMS) as a tool to detect coral reef biodiversity across a depth gradient.

Authors:  Joseph D DiBattista; James D Reimer; Michael Stat; Giovanni D Masucci; Piera Biondi; Maarten De Brauwer; Michael Bunce
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 3.  Beyond Biodiversity: Can Environmental DNA (eDNA) Cut It as a Population Genetics Tool?

Authors:  Clare I M Adams; Michael Knapp; Neil J Gemmell; Gert-Jan Jeunen; Michael Bunce; Miles D Lamare; Helen R Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.096

4.  Evaluating sediment and water sampling methods for the estimation of deep-sea biodiversity using environmental DNA.

Authors:  Miriam I Brandt; Florence Pradillon; Blandine Trouche; Nicolas Henry; Cathy Liautard-Haag; Marie-Anne Cambon-Bonavita; Valérie Cueff-Gauchard; Patrick Wincker; Caroline Belser; Julie Poulain; Sophie Arnaud-Haond; Daniela Zeppilli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Effects of sampling strategies and DNA extraction methods on eDNA metabarcoding: A case study of estuarine fish diversity monitoring.

Authors:  Hui-Ting Ruan; Rui-Li Wang; Hong-Ting Li; Li Liu; Tian-Xu Kuang; Min Li; Ke-Shu Zou
Journal:  Zool Res       Date:  2022-03-18

Review 6.  A Critical Assessment of the Congruency between Environmental DNA and Palaeoecology for the Biodiversity Monitoring and Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction.

Authors:  Shahnawaz Hassan; Zulaykha Khurshid; Bikram Singh Bali; Bashir Ah Ganai; R Z Sayyed; Peter Poczai; Muzafar Zaman
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  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

8.  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

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

Authors:  Daniel Marquina; Rodrigo Esparza-Salas; Tomas Roslin; Fredrik Ronquist
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 7.090

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.