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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |