» Articles » PMID: 31830042

Watered-down Biodiversity? A Comparison of Metabarcoding Results from DNA Extracted from Matched Water and Bulk Tissue Biomonitoring Samples

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Dec 13
PMID 31830042
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Biomonitoring programs have evolved beyond the sole use of morphological identification to determine the composition of invertebrate species assemblages in an array of ecosystems. The application of DNA metabarcoding in freshwater systems for assessing benthic invertebrate communities is now being employed to generate biological information for environmental monitoring and assessment. A possible shift from the extraction of DNA from net-collected bulk benthic samples to its extraction directly from water samples for metabarcoding has generated considerable interest based on the assumption that taxon detectability is comparable when using either method. To test this, we studied paired water and benthos samples from a taxon-rich wetland complex, to investigate differences in the detection of arthropod taxa from each sample type. We demonstrate that metabarcoding of DNA extracted directly from water samples is a poor surrogate for DNA extracted from bulk benthic samples, focusing on key bioindicator groups. Our results continue to support the use of bulk benthic samples as a basis for metabarcoding-based biomonitoring, with nearly three times greater total richness in benthic samples compared to water samples. We also demonstrated that few arthropod taxa are shared between collection methods, with a notable lack of key bioindicator EPTO taxa in the water samples. Although species coverage in water could likely be improved through increased sample replication and/or increased sequencing depth, benthic samples remain the most representative, cost-effective method of generating aquatic compositional information via metabarcoding.

Citing Articles

North Atlantic deep-sea benthic biodiversity unveiled through sponge natural sampler DNA.

Gallego R, Arias M, Corral-Lou A, Diez-Vives C, Neave E, Wang C Commun Biol. 2024; 7(1):1015.

PMID: 39160260 PMC: 11333605. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-024-06695-4.


A new sampling device for metabarcoding surveillance of port communities and detection of non-indigenous species.

Zarcero J, Antich A, Rius M, Wangensteen O, Turon X iScience. 2023; 27(1):108588.

PMID: 38111684 PMC: 10726295. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108588.


Assessing arthropod diversity metrics derived from stream environmental DNA: spatiotemporal variation and paired comparisons with manual sampling.

Aunins A, Mueller S, Fike J, Cornman R PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15163.

PMID: 37020852 PMC: 10069422. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15163.


Comparative environmental RNA and DNA metabarcoding analysis of river algae and arthropods for ecological surveys and water quality assessment.

Miyata K, Inoue Y, Amano Y, Nishioka T, Nagaike T, Kawaguchi T Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):19828.

PMID: 36400924 PMC: 9674700. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23888-1.


Multi-marker DNA metabarcoding detects suites of environmental gradients from an urban harbour.

Robinson C, Porter T, McGee K, McCusker M, Wright M, Hajibabaei M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):10556.

PMID: 35732669 PMC: 9217803. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13262-6.


References
1.
Hajibabaei M, Spall J, Shokralla S, van Konynenburg S . Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through non-destructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol. BMC Ecol. 2012; 12:28. PMC: 3542036. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-12-28. View

2.
Koziol A, Stat M, Simpson T, Jarman S, DiBattista J, Harvey E . Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018; 19(2):366-376. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12971. View

3.
Hajibabaei M . The golden age of DNA metasystematics. Trends Genet. 2012; 28(11):535-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.08.001. View

4.
Culp J, Armanini D, Dunbar M, Orlofske J, Poff N, Pollard A . Incorporating traits in aquatic biomonitoring to enhance causal diagnosis and prediction. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2011; 7(2):187-97. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.128. View

5.
Gibson J, Shokralla S, Porter T, King I, van Konynenburg S, Janzen D . Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(22):8007-12. PMC: 4050544. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406468111. View