Influence of homogenization methods on lichen species detection from environmental DNA metabarcoding
Authors/Creators
- 1. Natural History Museum and Institute, Chiba, Japan
- 2. Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
Description
Environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques are increasingly employed in biodiversity monitoring of aquatic and terrestrial animals, plants, and fungi, holding great potential to revolutionize biodiversity assessments. However, sampling and basic laboratory protocols still require refinement to optimize eDNA metabarcoding performance. Homogenization as a pre-treatment for eDNA extraction is known to enhance the concentration and quality of extracted eDNA for some groups of organisms. We previously developed a simple and efficient method for capturing arboreal biodiversity using stemflow as a source of eDNA; however, its performance with or without homogenization had not yet been compared. In this study, we evaluated the performance of two different homogenization methods using eDNA metabarcoding and qPCR assays. Metabarcoding analyses revealed that the method without homogenization detected the fewest species, while nearly identical and higher numbers of species were detected in samples subjected to bead-beating and frozen bead-beating homogenization. Similarly, qPCR analyses revealed that the method without homogenization yielded the lowest DNA concentration, while nearly identical and higher DNA yields were observed for bead-beating and frozen bead-beating homogenization. These findings suggest that, considering cost and effort, the bead-beating method without freezing is the most advantageous.
Files
MBMG_article_144340.pdf
Files
(689.8 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:30a1f03fb0705b4d0a32c70a393640dc
|
689.8 kB | Preview Download |
System files
(163.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:b096c5e537970311f876aaf951a77fa1
|
163.2 kB | Download |
Linked records
Additional details
References
- Adamo M, Voyron S, Chialva M, Marmeisse R, Girlanda M (2020) Metabarcoding on both environmental DNA and RNA highlights differences between fungal communities sampled in different habitats. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0244682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244682
- Albertsen M, Karst SM, Ziegler AS, Kirkegaard RH, Nielsen PH (2015) Back to Basics – The influence of DNA extraction and primer choice on phylogenetic analysis of activated sludge communities. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0132783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132783
- Cantera I, Cilleros K, Valentini A, Cerdan A, Dejean T, Iribar A, Taberlet P, Vigouroux R, Brosse S (2019) Optimizing environmental DNA sampling effort for fish inventories in tropical streams and rivers. Scientific Reports 9(1): 129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39399-5
- Cubero OF, Crespo A, Fatehi J, Bridge PD (1999) DNA extraction and PCR amplification method suitable for fresh, herbarium-stored, lichenized, and other fungi. Plant Systematics and Evolution 216(3–4): 243–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01084401
- Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, Seymour M, Lacoursière‐Roussel A, Altermatt F, Creer S, Bista I, Lodge DM, Vere N, Pfrender ME, Bernatchez L (2017) Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology 26(21): 5872–5895. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350
- Dinno A (2017) Package dunn.test: Dunn's test of multiple comparisons using rank sums. R package version 1.3.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dunn.test
- Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 26(19): 2460–2461. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
- Felsentein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 39(4): 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408678
- Ficetola GF, Taberlet P, Coissac E (2016) How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding? Molecular Ecology Resources 16(3): 604–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12508
- Fujii K, Doi H, Matsuoka S, Nagano M, Sato H, Yamanaka H (2019) Environmental DNA metabarcoding for fish community analysis in backwater lakes: A comparison of capture methods. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210357
- Goldberg CS, Pilliod DS, Arkle RS, Waits LP (2011) Molecular detection of vertebrates in stream water: A demonstration using Rocky Mountain tailed frogs and Idaho giant salamanders. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022746
- Guo F, Zhang T (2013) Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 97(10): 4607–4616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4244-4
- Gweon HS, Shaw LP, Swann J, Maio ND, AbuOun M, Niehus R, Hubbard ATM, Bowes MJ, Bailey MJ, Peto TEA, Hoosdally SJ, Walker AS, Sebra RP, Crook DW, Anjum MF, Read DS, Stoesser N, Abuoun M, Anjum M, Bailey MJ, Barker L, Brett H, Bowes MJ, Chau K, Crook DW, Maio ND, Gilson D, Gweon HS, Hubbard ATM, Hoosdally S, Kavanagh J, Jones H, Peto TEA, Read DS, Sebra R, Shaw LP, Sheppard AE, Smith R, Stubberfield E, Swann J, Walker AS, Woodford N (2019) The impact of sequencing depth on the inferred taxonomic composition and AMR gene content of metagenomic samples. Environmental Microbiome 14(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-019-0347-1
- Hinlo R, Furlan E, Suitor L, Gleeson D (2017) Environmental DNA monitoring and management of invasive fish: Comparison of eDNA and fyke netting. Management of Biological Invasions : International Journal of Applied Research on Biological Invasions 8(1): 89–100. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.1.09
- Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM (2011) "Sight‐unseen" detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conservation Letters 4(2): 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00158.x
- Johnson MD, Cox RD, Barnes MA (2019) Analyzing airborne environmental DNA: A comparison of extraction methods, primer type, and trap type on the ability to detect airborne eDNA from terrestrial plant communities. Environmental DNA 1(2): 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.19
- Johnson MD, Freeland JR, Parducci L, Evans DM, Meyer RS, Molano‐Flores B, Davis MA (2023) Environmental DNA as an emerging tool in botanical research. American Journal of Botany 110(2): e16120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.16120
- Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(4): 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010
- Kelly RP, Port JA, Yamahara KM, Crowder LB (2014) Using Environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086175
- Kuske CR, Banton KL, Adorada DL, Stark PC, Hill KK, Jackson PJ (1998) Small-scale DNA sample preparation method for field PCR detection of microbial cells and spores in soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64(7): 2463–2472. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.64.7.2463-2472.1998
- Lever MA, Torti A, Eickenbusch P, Michaud AB, Šantl-Temkiv T, Jørgensen BB (2015) A modular method for the extraction of DNA and RNA, and the separation of DNA pools from diverse environmental sample types. Frontiers in Microbiology 6: 476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00476
- Minamoto T, Miya M, Sado T, Seino S, Doi H, Kondoh M, Nakamura K, Takahara T, Yamamoto S, Yamanaka H, Araki H, Iwasaki W, Kasai A, Masuda R, Uchii K (2021) An illustrated manual for environmental DNA research: Water sampling guidelines and experimental protocols. Environmental DNA 3(1): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.121
- Miya M, Sado T (2019) Multiple species detection using MiFish primers. In: Committee eDNA MS (Ed.) Environmental DNA Sampling and Experiment Manual Version 2. 1. The eDNA Society, Otu, Japan, 55–92.
- Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, Sado T, Poulsen JY, Sato K, Minamoto T, Yamamoto S, Yamanaka H, Araki H, Kondoh M, Iwasaki W (2015) MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science 2(7): 150088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088
- Miya M, Minamoto T, Yamanaka H, Oka S, Sato K, Yamamoto S, Sado T, Doi H (2016) Use of a filter cartridge for filtration of water samples and extraction of Environmental DNA. Journal of Visualized Experiments 117: e54741. https://doi.org/10.3791/54741
- Miya M, Gotoh RO, Sado T (2020) MiFish metabarcoding: A high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples. Fisheries Science 86(6): 939–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-020-01461-x
- Miya M, Sado T, Oka S, Fukuchi T (2022) The use of citizen science in fish eDNA metabarcoding for evaluating regional biodiversity in a coastal marine region: A pilot study. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6: 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.80444
- Oka S, Miya M, Sado T (2022) Gravity filtration of environmental DNA: A simple, fast, and power-free method. MethodsX 9: 101838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101838
- Oksanen J, Simpson G, Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin P, O'Hara R, Solymos P, Stevens M, Szoecs E, Wagner H, Barbour M, Bedward M, Bolker B, Borcard D, Carvalho G, Chirico M De Caceres, Durand S, Evangelista HBA, FitzJohn R, Friendly M, Furneaux B, Hannigan G, Hill MO, Lahti L, McGlinn D, Ouellette M-H, Cunha ER, Smith T, Stier A, Ter Braak CJF, Weedon J (2022) Pakage vegan: Community ecology package. R Package version 2.6-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
- Pont D, Rocle M, Valentini A, Civade R, Jean P, Maire A, Roset N, Schabuss M, Zornig H, Dejean T (2018) Environmental DNA reveals quantitative patterns of fish biodiversity in large rivers despite its downstream transportation. Scientific Reports 8(1): 10361. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28424-8
- Prieto AE, Hardion L, Beisel J-N (2021) Designing robust DNA barcode libraries for metabarcoding of freshwater plants by integrating herbarium collections and contemporary floristic inventories. ARPHA Conference Abstracts 4: e64713. https://doi.org/10.3897/aca.4.e64713
- R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/index.html
- Rissanen J (1987) Stochastic complexity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology 49(3): 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1987.tb01694.x
- Sakata A, Sado T, Oka S, Ushio M, Miya M (2023) Collection of environmental DNA from stemflow for monitoring arboreal biodiversity: Preliminary validation using lichens. MethodsX 11: 102448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102448
- Schrader C, Schielke A, Ellerbroek L, Johne R (2012) PCR inhibitors – occurrence, properties and removal. Journal of Applied Microbiology 113(5): 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05384.x
- Singer GAC, Fahner NA, Barnes JG, McCarthy A, Hajibabaei M (2019) Comprehensive biodiversity analysis via ultra-deep patterned flow cell technology: A case study of eDNA metabarcoding seawater. Scientific Reports 9(1): 5991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42455-9
- Trifinopoulos J, Nguyen LT, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ (2016) W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 44(W1): W232–W235. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw256
- Ushio M (2019) Use of a filter cartridge combined with intra-cartridge bead beating improves detection of microbial DNA from water samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 435305(8): 1142–1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13204
- Wilcox TM, Zarn KE, Piggott MP, Young MK, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2018) Capture enrichment of aquatic environmental DNA: A first proof of concept. Molecular Ecology Resources 18(6): 1392–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12928