Literature DB >> 34146605

Phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis as a tool to estimate absolute abundances from compositional 16S rRNA bacterial metabarcoding data.

Natascha Lewe1, Syrie Hermans2, Gavin Lear2, Laura T Kelly3, Georgia Thomson-Laing3, Barbara Weisbrod4, Susanna A Wood3, Robert A Keyzers5, Julie R Deslippe6.   

Abstract

Microbial biodiversity monitoring through the analysis of DNA extracted from environmental samples is increasingly popular because it is perceived as being rapid, cost-effective, and flexible concerning the sample types studied. DNA can be extracted from diverse media before high-throughput sequencing of the prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene is used to characterize the taxonomic diversity and composition of the sample (known as metabarcoding). While sources of bias in metabarcoding methodologies are widely acknowledged, previous studies have focused mainly on the effects of these biases within a single substrate type, and relatively little is known of how these vary across substrates. We investigated the effect of substrate type (water, microbial mats, lake sediments, stream sediments, soil and a mock microbial community) on the relative performance of DNA metabarcoding in parallel with phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis. Quantitative estimates of the biomass of different taxonomic groups in samples were made through the analysis of PLFAs, and these were compared to the relative abundances of microbial taxa estimated from metabarcoding. Furthermore, we used the PLFA-based quantitative estimates of the biomass to adjust relative abundances of microbial groups determined by metabarcoding to provide insight into how the biomass of microbial taxa from PLFA analysis can improve understanding of microbial communities from environmental DNA samples. We used two sets of PLFA biomarkers that differed in their number of PLFAs to evaluate how PLFA biomarker selection influences biomass estimates. Metabarcoding and PLFA analysis provided significantly different views of bacterial composition, and these differences varied among substrates. We observed the most notable differences for the Gram-negative bacteria, which were overrepresented by metabarcoding in comparison to PLFA analysis. In contrast, the relative biomass and relative sequence abundances aligned reasonably well for Cyanobacteria across the tested freshwater substrates. Adjusting relative abundances of microbial taxa estimated by metabarcoding with PLFA-based quantification estimates of the microbial biomass led to significant changes in the microbial community compositions in all substrates. We recommend including independent estimates of the biomass of microbial groups to increase comparability among metabarcoding libraries from environmental samples, especially when comparing communities associated with different substrates.
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarker; Environmental monitoring; Environmental substrates; Microbial biomass; PLFA; eDNA

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34146605     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2021.106271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  3 in total

1.  The Potential Application of Natural Clinoptilolite-Rich Zeolite as Support for Bacterial Community Formation for Wastewater Treatment.

Authors:  Lacrimioara Senila; Alexandra Hoaghia; Ana Moldovan; Iulia Anamaria Török; Dalma Kovacs; Dorina Simedru; Calin Horea Tomoiag; Marin Senila
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.748

2.  Spatial Variability in Streambed Microbial Community Structure across Two Watersheds.

Authors:  Philips O Akinwole; Jinjun Kan; Louis A Kaplan; Robert H Findlay
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2021-12-15

3.  Soil microbial diversity and community composition during conversion from conventional to organic agriculture.

Authors:  Sophie Q van Rijssel; G F Ciska Veen; Guusje J Koorneef; J M T Tanja Bakx-Schotman; Freddy C Ten Hooven; Stefan Geisen; Wim H van der Putten
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 6.622

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.