An Environmental DNA Primer for Microbial and Restoration Ecology.
Metabarcoding
Metagenomics
Microbiome
Restoration ecology
eDNA
eRNA
Journal
Microbial ecology
ISSN: 1432-184X
Titre abrégé: Microb Ecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7500663
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
06
08
2022
accepted:
28
12
2022
medline:
5
5
2023
pubmed:
4
2
2023
entrez:
3
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Environmental DNA (eDNA) sequencing-DNA collected from the environment from living cells or shed DNA-was first developed for working with microbes and has greatly benefitted microbial ecologists for decades since. These tools have only become increasingly powerful with the advent of metabarcoding and metagenomics. Most new studies that examine diverse assemblages of bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, and viruses lean heavily into eDNA using these newer technologies, as the necessary sequencing technology and bioinformatic tools have become increasingly affordable and user friendly. However, eDNA methods are rapidly evolving, and sometimes it can feel overwhelming to simply keep up with the basics. In this review, we provide a starting point for microbial ecologists who are new to DNA-based methods by detailing the eDNA methods that are most pertinent, including study design, sample collection and storage, selecting the right sequencing technology, lab protocols, equipment, and a few bioinformatic tools. Furthermore, we focus on how eDNA work can benefit restoration and what modifications are needed when working in this subfield.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36735064
doi: 10.1007/s00248-022-02168-5
pii: 10.1007/s00248-022-02168-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Environmental
0
DNA Primers
0
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
796-808Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E et al (2017) Environmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol Ecol 26:5872–5895
pubmed: 28921802
doi: 10.1111/mec.14350
Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS (2019) Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: a systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob Ecol Conserv 17:e00547
doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547
Pawlowski J, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Altermatt F (2020) Environmental DNA: what’s behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring. Mol Ecol 29:4258–4264
pubmed: 32966665
doi: 10.1111/mec.15643
Cary SC, Coyne KJ, Rueckert A et al (2014) Development and validation of a quantitative PCR assay for the early detection and monitoring of the invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata. Harmful Algae 36:63–70
doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2014.04.003
Tessler M, Weiskopf SR, Berniker L (2018) Bloodlines: mammals, leeches, and conservation in southern Asia. Syst Biodivers 16:488–496
Tessler M, David F, Cunningham SW, Herstoff EM (2023) Rewilding in miniature: suburban meadows can improve soil microbial biodiversity and soil health. Microb Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-023-02171-4
Ogram A, Sayler GS, Barkay T (1987) The extraction and purification of microbial DNA from sediments. J Microbiol Methods 7:57–66
doi: 10.1016/0167-7012(87)90025-X
Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ et al (2014) REVIEW: The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA - a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol 51:1450–1459
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12306
Clark DR, Ferguson RMW, Harris DN et al (2018) Streams of data from drops of water: 21st century molecular microbial ecology. WIREs Water 5:e1280
doi: 10.1002/wat2.1280
Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Põlme S et al (2014) Fungal biogeography. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688
pubmed: 25430773
doi: 10.1126/science.1256688
Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D et al (2017) A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463
pubmed: 29088705
pmcid: 6192678
doi: 10.1038/nature24621
Lloyd KG, Steen AD, Ladau J, et al (2018) Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate earth microbiomes. mSystems 3. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00055-18
Stat M, Huggett MJ, Bernasconi R, et al (2017) Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment. Scientific Reports 7
Greninger AL (2018) A decade of RNA virus metagenomics is (not) enough. Virus Res 244:218–229
pubmed: 29055712
doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2017.10.014
Burki F, Sandin MM, Jamy M (2021) Diversity and ecology of protists revealed by metabarcoding. Curr Biol 31:R1267–R1280
pubmed: 34637739
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.066
del Campo J, Sieracki ME, Molestina R et al (2014) The others: our biased perspective of eukaryotic genomes. Trends Ecol Evol 29:252–259
pubmed: 24726347
pmcid: 4342545
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.006
Lansac-Tôha FM, Bini LM, Heino J et al (2020) Scale-dependent patterns of metacommunity structuring in aquatic organisms across floodplain systems. J Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14044
doi: 10.1111/jbi.14044
Tessler M, Brugler MR, DeSalle R et al (2017) A global eDNA comparison of freshwater bacterioplankton assemblages focusing on large-river floodplain lakes of brazil. Microb Ecol 73:61–74
pubmed: 27613296
doi: 10.1007/s00248-016-0834-5
Moore G, Tessler M, Cunningham SW (2020) Paleo-metagenomics of North American fossil packrat middens: past biodiversity revealed by ancient DNA. Ecology 10:2530–2544
Aponte A, Gyaltshen Y, Burns JA, et al (2021) The bacterial diversity lurking in protist cell cultures. American Museum Novitates 2021
Ingala MR, Becker DJ, Bak Holm J et al (2019) Habitat fragmentation is associated with dietary shifts and microbiota variability in common vampire bats. Ecol Evol 9:6508–6523
pubmed: 31236240
pmcid: 6580296
doi: 10.1002/ece3.5228
Góes-Neto A, Kukharenko O, Orlovska I et al (2021) Shotgun metagenomic analysis of kombucha mutualistic community exposed to Mars-like environment outside the International Space Station. Environ Microbiol 23:3727–3742
pubmed: 33476085
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15405
Palmer MA, Zedler JB, Falk DA (2016) Ecological theory and restoration ecology. Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, pp 3–26
doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-698-1_1
Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B et al (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 27:S1–S46
doi: 10.1111/rec.13035
Cooke SJ, Bennett JR, Jones HP (2019) We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the “Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.” Conservation Science and Practice 1
Farrell HL, Léger A, Breed MF, Gornish ES (2020) Restoration, soil organisms, and soil processes: emerging approaches. Restor Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13237
doi: 10.1111/rec.13237
Singh JS, Gupta VK (2018) Soil microbial biomass: a key soil driver in management of ecosystem functioning. Sci Total Environ 634:497–500
pubmed: 29635193
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.373
Singh AK, Sisodia A, Sisodia V, Padhi M (2019) Role of microbes in restoration ecology and ecosystem services. In: New and Future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering. Elsevier, 57–68
Theriot CM, Koenigsknecht MJ, Carlson PE Jr et al (2014) Antibiotic-induced shifts in the mouse gut microbiome and metabolome increase susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Commun 5:3114
pubmed: 24445449
doi: 10.1038/ncomms4114
Mattila E, Uusitalo-Seppälä R, Wuorela M et al (2012) Fecal transplantation, through colonoscopy, is effective therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Gastroenterology 142:490–496
pubmed: 22155369
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.11.037
Contos P, Wood JL, Murphy NP, Gibb H (2021) Rewilding with invertebrates and microbes to restore ecosystems: present trends and future directions. Ecol Evol 11:7187–7200
pubmed: 34188805
pmcid: 8216958
doi: 10.1002/ece3.7597
van der Heyde M, Bunce M, Dixon K et al (2020) Changes in soil microbial communities in post mine ecological restoration: implications for monitoring using high throughput DNA sequencing. Sci Total Environ 749:142262
pubmed: 33370926
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142262
Wolf DI, Vis ML (2020) Stream algal biofilm community diversity along an acid mine drainage recovery gradient using multimarker metabarcoding. J Phycol 56:11–22
pubmed: 31621078
doi: 10.1111/jpy.12935
Guo Y, Chen X, Wu Y et al (2018) Natural revegetation of a semiarid habitat alters taxonomic and functional diversity of soil microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 635:598–606
pubmed: 29679832
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.171
Mohr JJ, Harrison PA, Stanhope J, Breed MF (2022) Is the genomics “cart” before the restoration ecology “horse”? Insights from qualitative interviews and trends from the literature. Phil Trans Royal Soc B 377:20210381
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0381
Ye SH, Siddle KJ, Park DJ, Sabeti PC (2019) Benchmarking metagenomics tools for taxonomic classification. Cell 178:779–794
pubmed: 31398336
pmcid: 6716367
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.010
Ogden LE (2022) The emergence of eDNA: an interdisciplinary tool helps monitor biodiversity and health. Bioscience 72:5–12
pubmed: 35024000
doi: 10.1093/biosci/biab120
Dickie IA, Boyer S, Buckley HL et al (2018) Towards robust and repeatable sampling methods in eDNA-based studies. Mol Ecol Resour. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12907
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12907
pubmed: 29802793
Beng KC, Corlett RT (2020) Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects. Biodivers Conserv 29:2089–2121
doi: 10.1007/s10531-020-01980-0
Schmidt ML, Biddanda BA, Weinke AD, et al (2020) Microhabitats are associated with diversity-productivity relationships in freshwater bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96.: https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa029
Guo B, Liu C, Gibson C, Frigon D (2019) Wastewater microbial community structure and functional traits change over short timescales. Sci Total Environ 662:779–785
pubmed: 30708293
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.207
Chernov TI, Zhelezova AD (2020) The dynamics of soil microbial communities on different timescales: a review. Eurasian Soil Sci 53:643–652
doi: 10.1134/S106422932005004X
Beachey C (1980) Bacterial Adherence. Springer
doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5863-0
Deiner K, Lopez J, Bourne S, et al (2018) Optimising the detection of marine taxonomic richness using environmental DNA metabarcoding: the effects of filter material, pore size and extraction method. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2
Moldovan OT, Baricz A, Szekeres E et al (2020) Testing different membrane filters for 16S rRNA gene-based metabarcoding in karstic springs. Water 12:3400
doi: 10.3390/w12123400
Liang Z, Keeley A (2013) Filtration recovery of extracellular DNA from environmental water samples. Environ Sci Technol 47:9324–9331
pubmed: 23869402
doi: 10.1021/es401342b
Pathan SI, Arfaioli P, Ceccherini MT et al (2021) Physical protection of extracellular and intracellular DNA in soil aggregates against simulated natural oxidative processes. Appl Soil Ecol 165:104002
doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104002
Roscoe R, Buurman P, Velthorst EJ (2000) Disruption of soil aggregates by varied amounts of ultrasonic energy in fractionation of organic matter of a clay Latosol: carbon, nitrogen and δ13C distribution in particle-size fractions. Eur J Soil Sci 51:445–454
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2389.2000.00321.x
Lynggaard C, Bertelsen MF, Jensen CV et al (2022) Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring. Curr Biol 32:701-707.e5
pubmed: 34995490
pmcid: 8837273
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.014
Clare EL, Economou CK, Faulkes CG et al (2021) eDNAir: proof of concept that animal DNA can be collected from air sampling. PeerJ 9:e11030
pubmed: 33850648
pmcid: 8019316
doi: 10.7717/peerj.11030
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 1:176–185
doi: 10.1002/edn3.19
Abrego N, Norros V, Halme P et al (2018) Give me a sample of air and I will tell which species are found from your region: molecular identification of fungi from airborne spore samples. Mol Ecol Resour 18:511–524
pubmed: 29330936
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12755
Arriola LA, Cooper A, Weyrich LS (2020) Palaeomicrobiology: application of ancient DNA sequencing to better understand bacterial genome evolution and adaptation. Front Ecol Evol 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00040
Liu Y, Weyrich LS, Llamas B (2020) More arrows in the ancient DNA quiver: use of paleoepigenomes and paleomicrobiomes to investigate animal adaptation to environment. Mol Biol Evol 37:307–319
pubmed: 31638147
doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz231
Liang R, Li Z, Lau Vetter MCY et al (2021) Genomic reconstruction of fossil and living microorganisms in ancient Siberian permafrost. Microbiome 9:110
pubmed: 34001281
pmcid: 8130349
doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01057-2
Hagan RW, Hofman CA, Hübner A et al (2020) Comparison of extraction methods for recovering ancient microbial DNA from paleofeces. Am J Phys Anthropol 171:275–284
pubmed: 31785113
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23978
Orlando L, Allaby R, Skoglund P, et al (2021) Ancient DNA analysis. Nat Rev Methods Primers 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-020-00011-0
Unnithan VV, Unc A, Joe V, Smith GB (2015) Short RNA indicator sequences are not completely degraded by autoclaving. Scientific Reports 4
Espy MJ, Uhl JR, Sloan LM et al (2002) Detection of vaccinia virus, herpes simplex virus, varicella-zoster virus, and Bacillus anthracis DNA by LightCycler polymerase chain reaction after autoclaving: implications for biosafety of bioterrorism agents. Mayo Clin Proc 77:624–628
pubmed: 12108599
doi: 10.4065/77.7.624
Champlot S, Berthelot C, Pruvost M, et al (2010) An efficient multistrategy DNA decontamination procedure of PCR reagents for hypersensitive PCR applications. PLoS One 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013042
Jo T, Minamoto T (2021) Complex interactions between environmental DNA (eDNA) state and water chemistries on eDNA persistence suggested by meta-analyses. Mol Ecol Resour 21:1490–1503
pubmed: 33580561
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13354
Deiner K, Altermatt F (2014) Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS ONE 9:e88786
pubmed: 24523940
pmcid: 3921251
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088786
Kirse A, Bourlat SJ, Langen K, Fonseca VG (2021) Unearthing the potential of soil eDNA metabarcoding—towards best practice advice for invertebrate biodiversity assessment. Front Ecol Evol 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.630560
Clasen LA, Detheridge AP, Scullion J, Griffith GW (2020) Soil stabilisation for DNA metabarcoding of plants and fungi. Implications for sampling at remote locations or via third-parties. Metabarcoding Metagenom 4. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.4.58365
Renshaw MA, Olds BP, Jerde CL et al (2015) The room temperature preservation of filtered environmental DNA samples and assimilation into a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl alcohol DNA extraction. Mol Ecol Resour 15:168–176
pubmed: 24834966
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12281
Longmire JL, Baker RJ, Maltbie M, Texas Tech University. (1997) Use of “lysis buffer” in DNA isolation and its implication for museum collections
Spens J, Evans AR, Halfmaerten D et al (2017) Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods Ecol Evol 8:635–645
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12683
Brugler MR, Aguado MT, Tessler M, Siddall ME (2018) The transcriptome of the Bermuda fireworm Odontosyllis enopla (Annelida: Syllidae): a unique luciferase gene family and putative epitoky-related genes. PLoS ONE 13:e0200944
pubmed: 30089107
pmcid: 6082529
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200944
Yates MC, Derry AM, Cristescu ME (2021) Environmental RNA: a revolution in ecological resolution? Trends Ecol Evol 36:601–609
pubmed: 33757695
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.03.001
Yang F, Sun J, Luo H, et al (2020) Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic studies. Gigascience 9. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giaa071
Hunter ME, Ferrante JA, Meigs-Friend G, Ulmer A (2019) Improving eDNA yield and inhibitor reduction through increased water volumes and multi-filter isolation techniques. Sci Rep 9:5259
pubmed: 30918268
pmcid: 6437164
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40977-w
Monteiro L, Bonnemaison D, Vekris A et al (1997) Complex polysaccharides as PCR inhibitors in feces: Helicobacter pylori model. J Clin Microbiol 35:995–998
pubmed: 9157172
pmcid: 229720
doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.4.995-998.1997
Miao T, Gao S, Jiang S et al (2014) A method suitable for DNA extraction from humus-rich soil. Biotechnol Lett 36:2223–2228
pubmed: 24980851
doi: 10.1007/s10529-014-1591-5
Ranjan R, Rani A, Metwally A et al (2016) Analysis of the microbiome: advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 469:967–977
pubmed: 26718401
doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.12.083
Wooley JC, Godzik A, Friedberg I (2010) A primer on metagenomics. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000667
pubmed: 20195499
pmcid: 2829047
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000667
Wiseschart A, Mhuantong W, Tangphatsornruang S et al (2019) Shotgun metagenomic sequencing from Manao-Pee cave, Thailand, reveals insight into the microbial community structure and its metabolic potential. BMC Microbiol 19:144
pubmed: 31248378
pmcid: 6598295
doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1521-8
Tessler M, Neumann JS, Afshinnekoo E et al (2017) Large-scale differences in microbial biodiversity discovery between 16S amplicon and shotgun sequencing. Sci Rep 7:6589
pubmed: 28761145
pmcid: 5537354
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06665-3
Rubiola S, Macori G, Civera T et al (2022) Comparison between full-length 16S rRNA metabarcoding and whole metagenome sequencing suggests the use of either is suitable for large-scale microbiome studies. Foodborne Pathog Dis 19:495–504
pubmed: 35819265
doi: 10.1089/fpd.2022.0027
Cantu M, Morrison MA, Gagan J (2022) Standardized comparison of different DNA sequencing platforms. Clin Chem 68:872–876
pubmed: 35266530
doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvac023
Haro-Moreno JM, López-Pérez M, Rodriguez-Valera F (2021) Enhanced recovery of microbial genes and genomes from a marine water column using long-read metagenomics. Front Microbiol 12:708782
pubmed: 34512586
pmcid: 8430335
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.708782
Heeger F, Bourne EC, Baschien C et al (2018) Long-read DNA metabarcoding of ribosomal RNA in the analysis of fungi from aquatic environments. Mol Ecol Resour 18:1500–1514
pubmed: 30106226
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12937
Jamy M, Foster R, Barbera P et al (2020) Long-read metabarcoding of the eukaryotic rDNA operon to phylogenetically and taxonomically resolve environmental diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 20:429–443
pubmed: 31705734
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13117
Fadeev E, Cardozo-Mino MG, Rapp JZ, et al (2021) Comparison of two 16S rRNA primers (V3–V4 and V4–V5) for studies of arctic microbial communities. Frontiers in Microbiology 12
Hugerth LW, Muller EEL, Hu YOO et al (2014) Systematic design of 18S rRNA gene primers for determining eukaryotic diversity in microbial consortia. PLoS ONE 9:e95567
pubmed: 24755918
pmcid: 3995771
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095567
Ihrmark K, Bödeker ITM, Cruz-Martinez K et al (2012) New primers to amplify the fungal ITS2 region–evaluation by 454-sequencing of artificial and natural communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 82:666–677
pubmed: 22738186
doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01437.x
Wei N, Nakajima F, Tobino T (2018) A microcosm study of surface sediment environmental DNA: decay observation, abundance estimation, and fragment length comparison. Environ Sci Technol 52:12428–12435
pubmed: 30265799
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04956
Langlois VS, Allison MJ, Bergman LC et al (2021) The need for robust qPCR-based eDNA detection assays in environmental monitoring and species inventories. Environmental DNA 3:519–527
doi: 10.1002/edn3.164
Hernandez C, Bougas B, Perreault-Payette A et al (2020) 60 specific eDNA qPCR assays to detect invasive, threatened, and exploited freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates in Eastern Canada. Environmental DNA 2:373–386
doi: 10.1002/edn3.89
Gauthier J, Vincent AT, Charette SJ, Derome N (2019) A brief history of bioinformatics. Brief Bioinform 20:1981–1996
pubmed: 30084940
doi: 10.1093/bib/bby063
McIntyre ABR, Ounit R, Afshinnekoo E et al (2017) Comprehensive benchmarking and ensemble approaches for metagenomic classifiers. Genome Biol 18:182
pubmed: 28934964
pmcid: 5609029
doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1299-7
Bik HM (2021) Just keep it simple? Benchmarking the accuracy of taxonomy assignment software in metabarcoding studies. Mol Ecol Resour 21:2187–2189
pubmed: 34268901
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13473
Sewe SO, Silva G, Sicat P et al (2022) Trimming and validation of Illumina short reads using Trimmomatic, Trinity Assembly, and assessment of RNA-seq data. Methods Mol Biol 2443:211–232
pubmed: 35037208
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2067-0_11
Balvočiūtė M, Huson DH (2017) SILVA, RDP, Greengenes, NCBI and OTT - how do these taxonomies compare? BMC Genomics 18:114
pubmed: 28361695
pmcid: 5374703
doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-3501-4
Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Salzberg SL (2019) A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly. Brief Bioinform 20:1125–1136
pubmed: 29028872
doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx120
Zinger L, Bonin A, Alsos IG et al (2019) DNA metabarcoding—need for robust experimental designs to draw sound ecological conclusions. Mol Ecol 28:1857–1862
pubmed: 31033079
doi: 10.1111/mec.15060
Davis NM, Proctor DM, Holmes SP et al (2018) Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6:226
pubmed: 30558668
pmcid: 6298009
doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0605-2
Darwish N, Shao J, Schreier LL, Proszkowiec-Weglarz M (2021) Choice of 16S ribosomal RNA primers affects the microbiome analysis in chicken ceca. Sci Rep 11:11848
pubmed: 34088939
pmcid: 8178357
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91387-w
Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ (1999) PCR applications: protocols for functional genomics. Academic Press
Marotz C, Sharma A, Humphrey G et al (2019) Triplicate PCR reactions for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing are unnecessary. Biotechniques 67:29–32
pubmed: 31124709
pmcid: 7030937
doi: 10.2144/btn-2018-0192
Hung Y-M, Lyu W-N, Tsai M-L et al (2022) To compare the performance of prokaryotic taxonomy classifiers using curated 16S full-length rRNA sequences. Comput Biol Med 145:105416
pubmed: 35313206
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105416
Prodan A, Tremaroli V, Brolin H et al (2020) Comparing bioinformatic pipelines for microbial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. PLoS ONE 15:e0227434
pubmed: 31945086
pmcid: 6964864
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227434
Smith O, Gilbert MTP (2018) Ancient RNA. Population Genomics 53–74
Bashiardes S, Zilberman-Schapira G, Elinav E (2016) Use of metatranscriptomics in microbiome research. Bioinform Biol Insights 10:19–25
pubmed: 27127406
pmcid: 4839964
doi: 10.4137/BBI.S34610
Knowlton N, Jackson JBC (2008) Shifting baselines, local impacts, and global change on coral reefs. PLoS Biol 6:e54
pubmed: 18303956
pmcid: 2253644
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060054
Glasl B, Bourne DG, Frade PR, Webster NS (2018) Establishing microbial baselines to identify indicators of coral reef health. Microbiology Australia 39:42
doi: 10.1071/MA18011
Higgs E, Falk DA, Guerrini A et al (2014) The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Front Ecol Environ 12:499–506
doi: 10.1890/110267