Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht Elzbieta, Granqvist Emma, Buczek Mateusz, Prus Monika, Kudlicka Jan, Roslin Tomas, Tack Ayco J M, Andersson Anders F, Miraldo Andreia, Ronquist Fredrik, Łukasik Piotr
Department of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland.
Methods Ecol Evol. 2023 Apr;14(4):1130-1146. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.14073. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
1: Metabarcoding (high-throughput sequencing of marker gene amplicons) has emerged as a promising and cost-effective method for characterizing insect community samples. Yet, the methodology varies greatly among studies and its performance has not been systematically evaluated to date. In particular, it is unclear how accurately metabarcoding can resolve species communities in terms of presence-absence, abundances, and biomass. 2: Here we use mock community experiments and a simple probabilistic model to evaluate the effect of different DNA extraction protocols on metabarcoding performance. Specifically, we ask four questions: (Q1) How consistent are the recovered community profiles across replicate mock communities?; (Q2) How does the choice of lysis buffer affect the recovery of the original community?; (Q3) How are community estimates affected by differing lysis times and homogenization?; and (Q4) Is it possible to obtain adequate species abundance estimates through the use of biological spike-ins? 3: We show that estimates are quite variable across community replicates. In general, a mild lysis protocol is better at reconstructing species lists and approximate counts, while homogenization is better at retrieving biomass composition. Small insects are more likely to be detected in lysates, while some tough species require homogenization to be detected. Results are less consistent across biological replicates for lysates than for homogenates. Some species are associated with strong PCR amplification bias, which complicates the reconstruction of species counts. Yet, with adequate spike-in data, species abundance can be determined with roughly 40% standard error for homogenates, and with roughly 50% standard error for lysates, under ideal conditions. In the latter case, however, this often requires species-specific reference data, while spike-in data generalizes better across species for homogenates. 4: We conclude that a non-destructive, mild lysis approach shows the highest promise for presence/absence description of the community, while also allowing future morphological or molecular work on the material. However, homogenization protocols perform better for characterizing community composition, in particular in terms of biomass.
1: 代谢条形码技术(标记基因扩增子的高通量测序)已成为一种很有前景且经济高效的方法,用于表征昆虫群落样本。然而,不同研究中的方法差异很大,其性能至今尚未得到系统评估。特别是,目前尚不清楚代谢条形码技术在物种存在与否、丰度和生物量方面解析物种群落的准确程度。2: 在此,我们使用模拟群落实验和一个简单的概率模型来评估不同DNA提取方案对代谢条形码技术性能的影响。具体而言,我们提出四个问题:(问题1)重复的模拟群落中恢复的群落概况有多一致?;(问题2)裂解缓冲液的选择如何影响原始群落的恢复?;(问题3)不同的裂解时间和匀浆处理如何影响群落估计?;以及(问题4)通过使用生物内参能否获得足够的物种丰度估计?3: 我们表明,不同群落重复之间的估计差异很大。一般来说,温和的裂解方案在重建物种列表和近似数量方面表现更好,而匀浆处理在获取生物量组成方面表现更好。在裂解物中更容易检测到小昆虫,而一些坚韧的物种需要匀浆处理才能被检测到。与匀浆物相比,裂解物在生物重复之间的结果一致性较差。一些物种存在强烈的PCR扩增偏差,这使得物种数量的重建变得复杂。然而,在理想条件下,有足够的内参数据时,匀浆物的物种丰度可以以大约40%的标准误差确定,裂解物的标准误差约为大约50%。然而,在后一种情况下,这通常需要物种特异性的参考数据,而内参数据在匀浆物中对不同物种的通用性更好。4: 我们得出结论,一种非破坏性的温和裂解方法在群落存在/不存在描述方面显示出最大的前景,同时也允许对材料进行未来的形态学或分子研究。然而,匀浆方案在表征群落组成方面表现更好,特别是在生物量方面。