Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding.
Biodiversity
Insects
Metabarcoding
Monitoring
Pooling strategies
Size sorting
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
21
04
2021
accepted:
29
08
2021
entrez:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Small and rare specimens can remain undetected when metabarcoding is applied on bulk samples with a high specimen size heterogeneity. This is especially critical for Malaise trap samples, where most of the biodiversity is contributed by small taxa with low biomass. The separation of samples in different size fractions for downstream analysis is one possibility to increase detection of small and rare taxa. However, experiments systematically testing different size sorting approaches and subsequent proportional pooling of fractions are lacking, but would provide important information for the optimization of metabarcoding protocols. We set out to find a size sorting strategy for Malaise trap samples that maximizes taxonomic recovery but remains scalable and time efficient. Three Malaise trap samples were sorted into four size classes using dry sieving. Each fraction was homogenized and lysed. The corresponding lysates were pooled to simulate unsorted samples. Pooling was additionally conducted in equal proportions and in four different proportions enriching the small size fraction of samples. DNA from the individual size classes as well as the pooled fractions was extracted and metabarcoded using the FwhF2 and Fol-degen-rev primer set. Additionally, alternative wet sieving strategies were explored. The small size fractions harboured the highest diversity and were best represented when pooling in favour of small specimens. Metabarcoding of unsorted samples decreases taxon recovery compared to size sorted samples. A size separation into only two fractions (below 4 mm and above) can double taxon recovery compared to not size sorting. However, increasing the sequencing depth 3- to 4-fold can also increase taxon recovery to levels comparable with size sorting, but remains biased towards biomass rich taxa in the sample. We demonstrate that size fractionation of Malaise trap bulk samples can increase taxon recovery. While results show distinct patterns, the lack of statistical support due to the limited number of samples processed is a limitation. Due to increased speed and lower risk of cross-contamination as well as specimen damage we recommend wet sieving and proportional pooling of the lysates in favour of the small size fraction (80-90% volume). However, for large-scale projects with time constraints, increasing sequencing depth is an alternative solution.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Small and rare specimens can remain undetected when metabarcoding is applied on bulk samples with a high specimen size heterogeneity. This is especially critical for Malaise trap samples, where most of the biodiversity is contributed by small taxa with low biomass. The separation of samples in different size fractions for downstream analysis is one possibility to increase detection of small and rare taxa. However, experiments systematically testing different size sorting approaches and subsequent proportional pooling of fractions are lacking, but would provide important information for the optimization of metabarcoding protocols. We set out to find a size sorting strategy for Malaise trap samples that maximizes taxonomic recovery but remains scalable and time efficient.
METHODS
METHODS
Three Malaise trap samples were sorted into four size classes using dry sieving. Each fraction was homogenized and lysed. The corresponding lysates were pooled to simulate unsorted samples. Pooling was additionally conducted in equal proportions and in four different proportions enriching the small size fraction of samples. DNA from the individual size classes as well as the pooled fractions was extracted and metabarcoded using the FwhF2 and Fol-degen-rev primer set. Additionally, alternative wet sieving strategies were explored.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The small size fractions harboured the highest diversity and were best represented when pooling in favour of small specimens. Metabarcoding of unsorted samples decreases taxon recovery compared to size sorted samples. A size separation into only two fractions (below 4 mm and above) can double taxon recovery compared to not size sorting. However, increasing the sequencing depth 3- to 4-fold can also increase taxon recovery to levels comparable with size sorting, but remains biased towards biomass rich taxa in the sample.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate that size fractionation of Malaise trap bulk samples can increase taxon recovery. While results show distinct patterns, the lack of statistical support due to the limited number of samples processed is a limitation. Due to increased speed and lower risk of cross-contamination as well as specimen damage we recommend wet sieving and proportional pooling of the lysates in favour of the small size fraction (80-90% volume). However, for large-scale projects with time constraints, increasing sequencing depth is an alternative solution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34707928
doi: 10.7717/peerj.12177
pii: 12177
pmc: PMC8500090
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12177Informations de copyright
© 2021 Elbrecht et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 30;8(1):1188
pubmed: 29084957
Ecol Evol. 2020 Apr 02;10(9):4009-4020
pubmed: 32489627
Mol Ecol. 2019 Jan;28(2):420-430
pubmed: 30408260
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 7;270(1512):313-21
pubmed: 12614582
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 08;10(7):e0130324
pubmed: 26154168
PeerJ. 2019 Oct 7;7:e7745
pubmed: 31608170
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 14;117(15):8539-8545
pubmed: 32217735
Mol Ecol. 2019 Jan;28(2):391-406
pubmed: 29858539
Bioinformatics. 2015 Nov 1;31(21):3476-82
pubmed: 26139637
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Aug 15;678:499-524
pubmed: 31077928
Ecol Evol. 2017 Jul 28;7(17):6918-6926
pubmed: 28904771
Genome. 2019 Mar;62(3):122-136
pubmed: 30457888
BMC Ecol. 2012 Dec 23;12:28
pubmed: 23259585
Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 May;18(3):391-406
pubmed: 29171158
Ecol Evol. 2019 Mar 04;9(6):3105-3116
pubmed: 30962884
Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 Jul;15(4):819-30
pubmed: 25454249
PeerJ. 2018 May 4;6:e4705
pubmed: 29740514
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jun;76(12):3863-8
pubmed: 20418443
Bioinformatics. 2015 Mar 1;31(5):770-2
pubmed: 25359895
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 16;14(12):e0226527
pubmed: 31841568
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 10;10(2):e0117562
pubmed: 25668035
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 12;9(1):5991
pubmed: 30979963
PeerJ. 2016 Oct 18;4:e2584
pubmed: 27781170
Gigascience. 2019 Aug 1;8(8):
pubmed: 31363753
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 20;9(1):12133
pubmed: 31431641
Ecol Lett. 2013 Oct;16(10):1245-57
pubmed: 23910579
Mol Ecol Resour. 2019 May;19(3):711-727
pubmed: 30779309
PLoS One. 2016 May 18;11(5):e0155497
pubmed: 27191722
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Feb 17;112(7):2076-81
pubmed: 25646458
Mol Ecol Resour. 2020 Nov;20(6):1542-1557
pubmed: 32559020
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 15;7(1):17668
pubmed: 29247210
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Nov 5;116(45):22651-22656
pubmed: 31636175
PeerJ. 2018 Jun 13;6:e4980
pubmed: 29915700