Cargando…
Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for rapid biodiversity assessment tools that have a broad taxonomic coverage. Here we evaluate a suite of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers coupled with next generation sequencing (NGS) that span the tree of life, comparing them with traditional biodiversity...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26445670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0086-1 |
_version_ | 1782393530624245760 |
---|---|
author | Drummond, Alexei J. Newcomb, Richard D. Buckley, Thomas R. Xie, Dong Dopheide, Andrew Potter, Benjamin CM Heled, Joseph Ross, Howard A. Tooman, Leah Grosser, Stefanie Park, Duckchul Demetras, Nicholas J. Stevens, Mark I. Russell, James C. Anderson, Sandra H. Carter, Anna Nelson, Nicola |
author_facet | Drummond, Alexei J. Newcomb, Richard D. Buckley, Thomas R. Xie, Dong Dopheide, Andrew Potter, Benjamin CM Heled, Joseph Ross, Howard A. Tooman, Leah Grosser, Stefanie Park, Duckchul Demetras, Nicholas J. Stevens, Mark I. Russell, James C. Anderson, Sandra H. Carter, Anna Nelson, Nicola |
author_sort | Drummond, Alexei J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for rapid biodiversity assessment tools that have a broad taxonomic coverage. Here we evaluate a suite of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers coupled with next generation sequencing (NGS) that span the tree of life, comparing them with traditional biodiversity monitoring tools within ten 20×20 meter plots along a 700 meter elevational gradient. RESULTS: From six eDNA datasets (one from each of 16S, 18S, ITS, trnL and two from COI) we identified sequences from 109 NCBI taxonomy-defined phyla or equivalent, ranging from 31 to 60 for a given eDNA marker. Estimates of alpha and gamma diversity were sensitive to the number of sequence reads, whereas beta diversity estimates were less sensitive. The average within-plot beta diversity was lower than between plots for all markers. The soil beta diversity of COI and 18S markers showed the strongest response to the elevational variation of the eDNA markers (COI: r=0.49, p<0.001; 18S: r=0.48, p<0.001). Furthermore pairwise beta diversities for these two markers were strongly correlated with those calculated from traditional vegetation and invertebrate biodiversity measures. CONCLUSIONS: Using a soil-based eDNA approach, we demonstrate that standard phylogenetic markers are capable of recovering sequences from a broad diversity of eukaryotes, in addition to prokaryotes by 16S. The COI and 18S eDNA markers are the best proxies for aboveground biodiversity based on the high correlation between the pairwise beta diversities of these markers and those obtained using traditional methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13742-015-0086-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4595072 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45950722015-10-07 Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment Drummond, Alexei J. Newcomb, Richard D. Buckley, Thomas R. Xie, Dong Dopheide, Andrew Potter, Benjamin CM Heled, Joseph Ross, Howard A. Tooman, Leah Grosser, Stefanie Park, Duckchul Demetras, Nicholas J. Stevens, Mark I. Russell, James C. Anderson, Sandra H. Carter, Anna Nelson, Nicola Gigascience Research BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for rapid biodiversity assessment tools that have a broad taxonomic coverage. Here we evaluate a suite of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers coupled with next generation sequencing (NGS) that span the tree of life, comparing them with traditional biodiversity monitoring tools within ten 20×20 meter plots along a 700 meter elevational gradient. RESULTS: From six eDNA datasets (one from each of 16S, 18S, ITS, trnL and two from COI) we identified sequences from 109 NCBI taxonomy-defined phyla or equivalent, ranging from 31 to 60 for a given eDNA marker. Estimates of alpha and gamma diversity were sensitive to the number of sequence reads, whereas beta diversity estimates were less sensitive. The average within-plot beta diversity was lower than between plots for all markers. The soil beta diversity of COI and 18S markers showed the strongest response to the elevational variation of the eDNA markers (COI: r=0.49, p<0.001; 18S: r=0.48, p<0.001). Furthermore pairwise beta diversities for these two markers were strongly correlated with those calculated from traditional vegetation and invertebrate biodiversity measures. CONCLUSIONS: Using a soil-based eDNA approach, we demonstrate that standard phylogenetic markers are capable of recovering sequences from a broad diversity of eukaryotes, in addition to prokaryotes by 16S. The COI and 18S eDNA markers are the best proxies for aboveground biodiversity based on the high correlation between the pairwise beta diversities of these markers and those obtained using traditional methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13742-015-0086-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4595072/ /pubmed/26445670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0086-1 Text en © Drummond et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Drummond, Alexei J. Newcomb, Richard D. Buckley, Thomas R. Xie, Dong Dopheide, Andrew Potter, Benjamin CM Heled, Joseph Ross, Howard A. Tooman, Leah Grosser, Stefanie Park, Duckchul Demetras, Nicholas J. Stevens, Mark I. Russell, James C. Anderson, Sandra H. Carter, Anna Nelson, Nicola Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title | Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title_full | Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title_fullStr | Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title_short | Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment |
title_sort | evaluating a multigene environmental dna approach for biodiversity assessment |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26445670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0086-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT drummondalexeij evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT newcombrichardd evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT buckleythomasr evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT xiedong evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT dopheideandrew evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT potterbenjamincm evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT heledjoseph evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT rosshowarda evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT toomanleah evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT grosserstefanie evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT parkduckchul evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT demetrasnicholasj evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT stevensmarki evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT russelljamesc evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT andersonsandrah evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT carteranna evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment AT nelsonnicola evaluatingamultigeneenvironmentaldnaapproachforbiodiversityassessment |