Cargando…

Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding

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 samp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elbrecht, Vasco, Bourlat, Sarah J., Hörren, Thomas, Lindner, Angie, Mordente, Adriana, Noll, Niklas W., Schäffler, Livia, Sorg, Martin, Zizka, Vera M.A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8500090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34707928
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12177
_version_ 1784580389945212928
author Elbrecht, Vasco
Bourlat, Sarah J.
Hörren, Thomas
Lindner, Angie
Mordente, Adriana
Noll, Niklas W.
Schäffler, Livia
Sorg, Martin
Zizka, Vera M.A.
author_facet Elbrecht, Vasco
Bourlat, Sarah J.
Hörren, Thomas
Lindner, Angie
Mordente, Adriana
Noll, Niklas W.
Schäffler, Livia
Sorg, Martin
Zizka, Vera M.A.
author_sort Elbrecht, Vasco
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8500090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85000902021-10-26 Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding Elbrecht, Vasco Bourlat, Sarah J. Hörren, Thomas Lindner, Angie Mordente, Adriana Noll, Niklas W. Schäffler, Livia Sorg, Martin Zizka, Vera M.A. PeerJ Biodiversity 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: 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: 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: 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. PeerJ Inc. 2021-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8500090/ /pubmed/34707928 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12177 Text en © 2021 Elbrecht et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://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
Bourlat, Sarah J.
Hörren, Thomas
Lindner, Angie
Mordente, Adriana
Noll, Niklas W.
Schäffler, Livia
Sorg, Martin
Zizka, Vera M.A.
Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title_full Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title_fullStr Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title_full_unstemmed Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title_short Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
title_sort pooling size sorted malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
topic Biodiversity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8500090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34707928
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12177
work_keys_str_mv AT elbrechtvasco poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT bourlatsarahj poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT horrenthomas poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT lindnerangie poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT mordenteadriana poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT nollniklasw poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT schafflerlivia poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT sorgmartin poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding
AT zizkaverama poolingsizesortedmalaisetrapfractionstomaximizetaxonrecoverywithmetabarcoding