Cargando…

Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators

BACKGROUND: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, we evaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). RESULTS: In a mock prey community, metabarcoding did not dete...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paula, Débora Pires, Barros, Suellen Karina Albertoni, Pitta, Rafael Major, Barreto, Marliton Rocha, Togawa, Roberto Coiti, Andow, David A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8952265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35333301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020
_version_ 1784675572495941632
author Paula, Débora Pires
Barros, Suellen Karina Albertoni
Pitta, Rafael Major
Barreto, Marliton Rocha
Togawa, Roberto Coiti
Andow, David A
author_facet Paula, Débora Pires
Barros, Suellen Karina Albertoni
Pitta, Rafael Major
Barreto, Marliton Rocha
Togawa, Roberto Coiti
Andow, David A
author_sort Paula, Débora Pires
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, we evaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). RESULTS: In a mock prey community, metabarcoding did not detect any prey, probably owing to primer choice and/or preferential predator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43–71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46–273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy. There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro, while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. CONCLUSIONS: Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar, but partially complementary, detection of prey in arthropod predator guts. However, while Lazaro was almost 2× more expensive, the number of reads was related to the amount of prey DNA, suggesting that Lazaro may provide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8952265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89522652022-03-28 Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators Paula, Débora Pires Barros, Suellen Karina Albertoni Pitta, Rafael Major Barreto, Marliton Rocha Togawa, Roberto Coiti Andow, David A Gigascience Research BACKGROUND: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, we evaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). RESULTS: In a mock prey community, metabarcoding did not detect any prey, probably owing to primer choice and/or preferential predator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43–71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46–273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy. There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro, while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. CONCLUSIONS: Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar, but partially complementary, detection of prey in arthropod predator guts. However, while Lazaro was almost 2× more expensive, the number of reads was related to the amount of prey DNA, suggesting that Lazaro may provide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not. Oxford University Press 2022-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8952265/ /pubmed/35333301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press GigaScience. 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 reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Paula, Débora Pires
Barros, Suellen Karina Albertoni
Pitta, Rafael Major
Barreto, Marliton Rocha
Togawa, Roberto Coiti
Andow, David A
Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title_full Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title_fullStr Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title_full_unstemmed Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title_short Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
title_sort metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8952265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35333301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020
work_keys_str_mv AT pauladeborapires metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators
AT barrossuellenkarinaalbertoni metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators
AT pittarafaelmajor metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators
AT barretomarlitonrocha metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators
AT togawarobertocoiti metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators
AT andowdavida metabarcodingversusmappingunassembledshotgunreadsforidentificationofpreyconsumedbyarthropodepigealpredators