Cargando…

Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects

Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) is a powerful marker for DNA barcoding of animals, with good taxonomic resolution and a large reference database. However, when used for DNA metabarcoding, estimation of taxa abundances and species detection are limited due to primer bias caused by highly variable primer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elbrecht, Vasco, Taberlet, Pierre, Dejean, Tony, Valentini, Alice, Usseglio-Polatera, Philippe, Beisel, Jean-Nicolas, Coissac, Eric, Boyer, Frederic, Leese, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114891
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1966
_version_ 1782428366014513152
author Elbrecht, Vasco
Taberlet, Pierre
Dejean, Tony
Valentini, Alice
Usseglio-Polatera, Philippe
Beisel, Jean-Nicolas
Coissac, Eric
Boyer, Frederic
Leese, Florian
author_facet Elbrecht, Vasco
Taberlet, Pierre
Dejean, Tony
Valentini, Alice
Usseglio-Polatera, Philippe
Beisel, Jean-Nicolas
Coissac, Eric
Boyer, Frederic
Leese, Florian
author_sort Elbrecht, Vasco
collection PubMed
description Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) is a powerful marker for DNA barcoding of animals, with good taxonomic resolution and a large reference database. However, when used for DNA metabarcoding, estimation of taxa abundances and species detection are limited due to primer bias caused by highly variable primer binding sites across the COI gene. Therefore, we explored the ability of the 16S ribosomal DNA gene as an alternative metabarcoding marker for species level assessments. Ten bulk samples, each containing equal amounts of tissue from 52 freshwater invertebrate taxa, were sequenced with the Illumina NextSeq 500 system. The 16S primers amplified three more insect species than the Folmer COI primers and amplified more equally, probably due to decreased primer bias. Estimation of biomass might be less biased with 16S than with COI, although variation in read abundances of two orders of magnitudes is still observed. According to these results, the marker choice depends on the scientific question. If the goal is to obtain a taxonomic identification at the species level, then COI is more appropriate due to established reference databases and known taxonomic resolution of this marker, knowing that a greater proportion of insects will be missed using COI Folmer primers. If the goal is to obtain a more comprehensive survey the 16S marker, which requires building a local reference database, or optimised degenerated COI primers could be more appropriate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4841222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48412222016-04-25 Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects Elbrecht, Vasco Taberlet, Pierre Dejean, Tony Valentini, Alice Usseglio-Polatera, Philippe Beisel, Jean-Nicolas Coissac, Eric Boyer, Frederic Leese, Florian PeerJ Biodiversity Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) is a powerful marker for DNA barcoding of animals, with good taxonomic resolution and a large reference database. However, when used for DNA metabarcoding, estimation of taxa abundances and species detection are limited due to primer bias caused by highly variable primer binding sites across the COI gene. Therefore, we explored the ability of the 16S ribosomal DNA gene as an alternative metabarcoding marker for species level assessments. Ten bulk samples, each containing equal amounts of tissue from 52 freshwater invertebrate taxa, were sequenced with the Illumina NextSeq 500 system. The 16S primers amplified three more insect species than the Folmer COI primers and amplified more equally, probably due to decreased primer bias. Estimation of biomass might be less biased with 16S than with COI, although variation in read abundances of two orders of magnitudes is still observed. According to these results, the marker choice depends on the scientific question. If the goal is to obtain a taxonomic identification at the species level, then COI is more appropriate due to established reference databases and known taxonomic resolution of this marker, knowing that a greater proportion of insects will be missed using COI Folmer primers. If the goal is to obtain a more comprehensive survey the 16S marker, which requires building a local reference database, or optimised degenerated COI primers could be more appropriate. PeerJ Inc. 2016-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4841222/ /pubmed/27114891 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1966 Text en ©2016 Elbrecht et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Biodiversity
Elbrecht, Vasco
Taberlet, Pierre
Dejean, Tony
Valentini, Alice
Usseglio-Polatera, Philippe
Beisel, Jean-Nicolas
Coissac, Eric
Boyer, Frederic
Leese, Florian
Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title_full Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title_fullStr Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title_full_unstemmed Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title_short Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects
title_sort testing the potential of a ribosomal 16s marker for dna metabarcoding of insects
topic Biodiversity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114891
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1966
work_keys_str_mv AT elbrechtvasco testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT taberletpierre testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT dejeantony testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT valentinialice testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT ussegliopolateraphilippe testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT beiseljeannicolas testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT coissaceric testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT boyerfrederic testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects
AT leeseflorian testingthepotentialofaribosomal16smarkerfordnametabarcodingofinsects