Cargando…
Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding
BACKGROUND: Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a common technique for efficient biodiversity monitoring, especially of microbes. Recently, the usefulness of aquatic eDNA in monitoring the diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic fungi has been suggested. In eDNA studies, different experiment...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9150701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35651749 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13477 |
_version_ | 1784717427867648000 |
---|---|
author | Matsuoka, Shunsuke Sugiyama, Yoriko Nagano, Mariko Doi, Hideyuki |
author_facet | Matsuoka, Shunsuke Sugiyama, Yoriko Nagano, Mariko Doi, Hideyuki |
author_sort | Matsuoka, Shunsuke |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a common technique for efficient biodiversity monitoring, especially of microbes. Recently, the usefulness of aquatic eDNA in monitoring the diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic fungi has been suggested. In eDNA studies, different experimental factors, such as DNA extraction kits or methods, can affect the subsequent analyses and the results of DNA metabarcoding. However, few methodological studies have been carried out on eDNA of fungi, and little is known about how experimental procedures can affect the results of biodiversity analysis. In this study, we focused on the effect of DNA extraction method on fungal DNA metabarcoding using freshwater samples obtained from rivers and lakes. METHODS: DNA was extracted from freshwater samples using the DNeasy PowerSoil kit, which is mainly used to extractmicrobial DNA from soil, and the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit, which is commonly used for eDNA studies on animals. We then compared PCR inhibition and fungal DNA metabarcoding results; i.e., operational taxonomic unit (OTU) number and composition of the extracted samples. RESULTS: No PCR inhibition was detected in any of the samples, and no significant differences in the number of OTUs and OTU compositions were detected between the samples processed using different kits. These results indicate that both DNA extraction kits may provide similar diversity results for the river and lake samples evaluated in this study. Therefore, it may be possible to evaluate the diversity of fungi using a unified experimental method, even with samples obtained for diversity studies on other taxa such as those of animals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9150701 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91507012022-05-31 Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding Matsuoka, Shunsuke Sugiyama, Yoriko Nagano, Mariko Doi, Hideyuki PeerJ Biodiversity BACKGROUND: Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a common technique for efficient biodiversity monitoring, especially of microbes. Recently, the usefulness of aquatic eDNA in monitoring the diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic fungi has been suggested. In eDNA studies, different experimental factors, such as DNA extraction kits or methods, can affect the subsequent analyses and the results of DNA metabarcoding. However, few methodological studies have been carried out on eDNA of fungi, and little is known about how experimental procedures can affect the results of biodiversity analysis. In this study, we focused on the effect of DNA extraction method on fungal DNA metabarcoding using freshwater samples obtained from rivers and lakes. METHODS: DNA was extracted from freshwater samples using the DNeasy PowerSoil kit, which is mainly used to extractmicrobial DNA from soil, and the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit, which is commonly used for eDNA studies on animals. We then compared PCR inhibition and fungal DNA metabarcoding results; i.e., operational taxonomic unit (OTU) number and composition of the extracted samples. RESULTS: No PCR inhibition was detected in any of the samples, and no significant differences in the number of OTUs and OTU compositions were detected between the samples processed using different kits. These results indicate that both DNA extraction kits may provide similar diversity results for the river and lake samples evaluated in this study. Therefore, it may be possible to evaluate the diversity of fungi using a unified experimental method, even with samples obtained for diversity studies on other taxa such as those of animals. PeerJ Inc. 2022-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9150701/ /pubmed/35651749 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13477 Text en ©2022 Matsuoka 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 Matsuoka, Shunsuke Sugiyama, Yoriko Nagano, Mariko Doi, Hideyuki Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title | Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title_full | Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title_fullStr | Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title_short | Influence of DNA extraction kits on freshwater fungal DNA metabarcoding |
title_sort | influence of dna extraction kits on freshwater fungal dna metabarcoding |
topic | Biodiversity |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9150701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35651749 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13477 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matsuokashunsuke influenceofdnaextractionkitsonfreshwaterfungaldnametabarcoding AT sugiyamayoriko influenceofdnaextractionkitsonfreshwaterfungaldnametabarcoding AT naganomariko influenceofdnaextractionkitsonfreshwaterfungaldnametabarcoding AT doihideyuki influenceofdnaextractionkitsonfreshwaterfungaldnametabarcoding |