» Articles » PMID: 35456860

Evaluating Methods of Preserving Aquatic Invertebrates for Microbiome Analysis

Overview
Journal Microorganisms
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2022 Apr 23
PMID 35456860
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Research on the microbiomes of animals has increased substantially within the past decades. More recently, microbial analyses of aquatic invertebrates have become of increased interest. The storage method used while collecting aquatic invertebrates has not been standardized throughout the scientific community, and the effects of common storage methods on the microbial composition of the organism is unknown. Using crayfish and dragonfly nymphs collected from a natural pond and crayfish maintained in an aquarium, the effects of two common storage methods, preserving in 95% ethanol and freezing at -20 °C, on the invertebrate bacterial microbiome was evaluated. We found that the bacterial community was conserved for two sample types (gut and exoskeleton) of field-collected crayfish stored either in ethanol or frozen, as was the gut microbiome of aquarium crayfish. However, there were significant differences between the bacterial communities found on the exoskeleton of aquarium crayfish stored in ethanol compared to those that were frozen. Dragonfly nymphs showed significant differences in gut microbial composition between species, but the microbiome was conserved between storage methods. These results demonstrate that preserving field-collected specimens of aquatic invertebrates in 95% ethanol is likely to be a simple and effective sample preservation method for subsequent gut microbiome analysis but is less reliable for the external microbiome.

Citing Articles

Characterizing the Gut Microbial Communities of Native and Invasive Freshwater Bivalves after Long-Term Sample Preservation.

Vaughn S, Atkinson C, Johnson P, Jackson C Microorganisms. 2023; 11(10).

PMID: 37894147 PMC: 10609060. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11102489.

References
1.
Callahan B, McMurdie P, Rosen M, Han A, Johnson A, Holmes S . DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016; 13(7):581-3. PMC: 4927377. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3869. View

2.
Dragicevic P, Bielen A, Petric I, Vuk M, Zucko J, Hudina S . Microbiome of the Successful Freshwater Invader, the Signal Crayfish, and Its Changes along the Invasion Range. Microbiol Spectr. 2021; 9(2):e0038921. PMC: 8557874. DOI: 10.1128/Spectrum.00389-21. View

3.
De Cock M, Virgilio M, Vandamme P, Augustinos A, Bourtzis K, Willems A . Impact of Sample Preservation and Manipulation on Insect Gut Microbiome Profiling. A Test Case With Fruit Flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). Front Microbiol. 2020; 10:2833. PMC: 6923184. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02833. View

4.
Stone B, Jackson C . Biogeographic Patterns Between Bacterial Phyllosphere Communities of the Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) in a Small Forest. Microb Ecol. 2016; 71(4):954-61. DOI: 10.1007/s00248-016-0738-4. View

5.
Ma J, Sheng L, Hong Y, Xi C, Gu Y, Zheng N . Variations of Gut Microbiome Profile Under Different Storage Conditions and Preservation Periods: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation. Front Microbiol. 2020; 11:972. PMC: 7267014. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00972. View