In silico and empirical evaluation of twelve metabarcoding primer sets for insectivorous diet analyses

Abstract During the most recent decade, environmental DNA metabarcoding approaches have been both developed and improved to minimize the biological and technical biases in these protocols. However, challenges remain, notably those relating to primer design. In the current study, we comprehensively assessed the performance of ten COI and two 16S primer pairs for eDNA metabarcoding, including novel and previously published primers. We used a combined approach of in silico, in vivo‐mock community (33 arthropod taxa from 16 orders), and guano‐based analyses to identify primer sets that would maximize arthropod detection and taxonomic identification, successfully identify the predator (bat) species, and minimize the time and financial costs of the experiment. We focused on two insectivorous bat species that live together in mixed colonies: the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) and Geoffroy's bat (Myotis emarginatus). We found that primer degeneracy is the main factor that influences arthropod detection in silico and mock community analyses, while amplicon length is critical for the detection of arthropods from degraded DNA samples. Our guano‐based results highlight the importance of detecting and identifying both predator and prey, as guano samples can be contaminated by other insectivorous species. Moreover, we demonstrate that amplifying bat DNA does not reduce the primers' capacity to detect arthropods. We therefore recommend the simultaneous identification of predator and prey. Finally, our results suggest that up to one‐third of prey occurrences may be unreliable and are probably not of primary interest in diet studies, which may decrease the relevance of combining several primer sets instead of using a single efficient one. In conclusion, this study provides a pragmatic framework for eDNA primer selection with respect to scientific and methodological constraints.

[1]  R. Allaby,et al.  Guano morphology reveals ecological information in British bats , 2019, bioRxiv.

[2]  H. Rebelo,et al.  Diet diversification shapes broad-scale distribution patterns in European bats , 2019, bioRxiv.

[3]  F. Gillet,et al.  The menu varies with metabarcoding practices: A case study with the bat Plecotus auritus , 2019, PloS one.

[4]  Thomas W. A. Braukmann,et al.  Validation of COI metabarcoding primers for terrestrial arthropods , 2019, PeerJ.

[5]  Thomas W. A. Braukmann,et al.  Metabarcoding a diverse arthropod mock community , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[6]  F. Ronquist,et al.  Establishing insect community composition using metabarcoding of soil samples, and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches: surprising inconsistencies between methods , 2019, bioRxiv.

[7]  Charles C. Y. Xu,et al.  One‐locus‐several‐primers: A strategy to improve the taxonomic and haplotypic coverage in diet metabarcoding studies , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[8]  M. Galan,et al.  Deciphering host-parasitoid interactions and parasitism rates of crop pests using DNA metabarcoding , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[9]  C. Gratton,et al.  An improved method for utilizing high‐throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[10]  P. Välimäki,et al.  From feces to data: A metabarcoding method for analyzing consumed and available prey in a bird‐insect food web , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[11]  J. Aihartza,et al.  Determining diet from faeces: Selection of metabarcoding primers for the insectivore Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) , 2018, PloS one.

[12]  S. Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Promises and pitfalls of using high‐throughput sequencing for diet analysis , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[13]  E. Petit,et al.  Coexistence of two sympatric cryptic bat species in French Guiana: insights from genetic, acoustic and ecological data , 2018, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[14]  E. Vesterinen,et al.  Table for five, please: Dietary partitioning in boreal bats , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[15]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Why the COI barcode should be the community DNA metabarcode for the metazoa , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[16]  Vanessa A. Mata,et al.  How much is enough? Effects of technical and biological replication on metabarcoding dietary analysis , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[17]  M. A. Senar,et al.  The choice of universal primers and the characteristics of the species mixture determine when DNA metabarcoding can be quantitative , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[18]  J. Vayssières,et al.  Increasing the utility of barcode databases through high-throughput sequencing of amplicons from dried museum specimens, an example on parasitic hymenoptera (Braconidae) , 2018, Biological Control.

[19]  C. Gratton,et al.  Incidence and taxonomic richness of mosquitoes in the diets of little brown and big brown bats , 2018, Journal of Mammalogy.

[20]  M. Galan,et al.  DNA sequencing to help identify crop pests and their natural enemies in agro-ecosystems: The case of the millet head miner Heliocheilus albipunctella (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in sub-Saharan Africa , 2018, Biological Control.

[21]  Anders F. Andersson,et al.  New mitochondrial primers for metabarcoding of insects, designed and evaluated using in silico methods , 2018, bioRxiv.

[22]  D. Streicker,et al.  Using DNA metabarcoding for simultaneous inference of common vampire bat diet and population structure , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[23]  Mahendra Mariadassou,et al.  FROGS: Find, Rapidly, OTUs with Galaxy Solution , 2018, Bioinform..

[24]  M. Galan,et al.  Evaluating metabarcoding to analyse diet composition of species foraging in anthropogenic landscapes using Ion Torrent and Illumina sequencing , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[25]  S. Puechmaille,et al.  Combining noninvasive genetics and a new mammalian sex‐linked marker provides new tools to investigate population size, structure and individual behaviour: An application to bats , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[26]  D. Steinke,et al.  Scaling upDNAmetabarcoding for freshwater macrozoobenthos monitoring , 2018, Freshwater Biology.

[27]  Vanessa A. Mata,et al.  Agriculture shapes the trophic niche of a bat preying on multiple pest arthropods across Europe: Evidence from DNA metabarcoding , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[28]  Antton Alberdi,et al.  Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples , 2018 .

[29]  Jean-François Martin,et al.  A from‐benchtop‐to‐desktop workflow for validating HTS data and for taxonomic identification in diet metabarcoding studies , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[30]  S. Aulagnier,et al.  Novel insights into the diet of the Pyrenean desman (Galemys Pyrenaicus) using next-generation sequencing molecular analyses , 2017, Journal of Mammalogy.

[31]  Brian Hayden,et al.  Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection , 2017 .

[32]  F. Leese,et al.  Short COI markers for freshwater macroinvertebrate metabarcoding , 2017 .

[33]  T. Roslin,et al.  Pellets of proof: First glimpse of the dietary composition of adult odonates as revealed by metabarcoding of feces , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[34]  M. Galan,et al.  Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their preys: application to bat species diet analysis , 2017, bioRxiv.

[35]  F. Leese,et al.  Validation and Development of COI Metabarcoding Primers for Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment , 2017, Front. Environ. Sci..

[36]  F. Leese,et al.  PrimerMiner: an r package for development and in silico validation of DNA metabarcoding primers , 2017 .

[37]  N. Fefferman,et al.  Chirosurveillance: The use of native bats to detect invasive agricultural pests , 2017, PloS one.

[38]  Carol L. Chambers,et al.  Species From Feces: Order-Wide Identification of Chiroptera From Guano and Other Non-Invasive Genetic Samples , 2016, PloS one.

[39]  M. Galan,et al.  16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing for Epidemiological Surveys of Bacteria in Wildlife , 2016, mSystems.

[40]  Paul Nichols,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long‐term data from established survey methods , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[41]  Dana N. Lee,et al.  Molecular Dietary Analysis of the Endangered Ozark Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) , 2016, Acta Chiropterologica.

[42]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects , 2016, PeerJ.

[43]  S. Aulagnier,et al.  A new method to identify the endangered Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) and to study its diet, using next generation sequencing from faeces , 2015 .

[44]  Antton Alberdi,et al.  Trophic requirements beyond foraging habitats: The importance of prey source habitats in bat conservation , 2015 .

[45]  P. Lim,et al.  DNA metabarcoding of insects and allies: an evaluation of primers and pipelines , 2015, Bulletin of Entomological Research.

[46]  R. Pringle,et al.  Molecular detection of invertebrate prey in vertebrate diets: trophic ecology of Caribbean island lizards , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[47]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Massively parallel multiplex DNA sequencing for specimen identification using an Illumina MiSeq platform , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[48]  L. Weyrich,et al.  Environmental metabarcodes for insects: in silico PCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[49]  Elizabeth L Clare,et al.  Molecular detection of trophic interactions: emerging trends, distinct advantages, significant considerations and conservation applications , 2014, Evolutionary applications.

[50]  François Pompanon,et al.  DNA metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: not a perfect match , 2014, Biology Letters.

[51]  Elizabeth L Clare,et al.  An inordinate fondness for beetles? Variation in seasonal dietary preferences of night‐roosting big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) , 2014, Molecular ecology.

[52]  François Fabianek,et al.  The diet of Myotis lucifugus across Canada: assessing foraging quality and diet variability , 2014, Molecular ecology.

[53]  Bart Lievens,et al.  Comparison and Validation of Some ITS Primer Pairs Useful for Fungal Metabarcoding Studies , 2014, PloS one.

[54]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[55]  B. Wolfe,et al.  Noninvasive Method for a Statewide Survey of Eastern Hellbenders Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Using Environmental DNA , 2013 .

[56]  V. Ranwez,et al.  A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents , 2013, Frontiers in Zoology.

[57]  Kessy Abarenkov,et al.  Fungal community analysis by high-throughput sequencing of amplified markers – a user's guide , 2013, The New phytologist.

[58]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Biodiversity soup: metabarcoding of arthropods for rapid biodiversity assessment and biomonitoring , 2012 .

[59]  Shane S. Sturrock,et al.  Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data , 2012, Bioinform..

[60]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[61]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Carnivore diet analysis based on next‐generation sequencing: application to the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in Pakistan , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[62]  V. I. Gusarov,et al.  New environmental metabarcodes for analysing soil DNA: potential for studying past and present ecosystems , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[63]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Towards next‐generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[64]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Environmental DNA , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[65]  Tanja Magoc,et al.  FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies , 2011, Bioinform..

[66]  Martin Kircher,et al.  Double indexing overcomes inaccuracies in multiplex sequencing on the Illumina platform , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[67]  Alain Viari,et al.  ecoPrimers: inference of new DNA barcode markers from whole genome sequence analysis , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[68]  Johannes Oehm,et al.  Molecular scatology: how to improve prey DNA detection success in avian faeces? , 2011, Molecular ecology resources.

[69]  Rob Knight,et al.  UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection , 2011, Bioinform..

[70]  Kristine Bohmann,et al.  Molecular Diet Analysis of Two African Free-Tailed Bats (Molossidae) Using High Throughput Sequencing , 2011, PloS one.

[71]  Marcel Martin Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads , 2011 .

[72]  J. Aihartza,et al.  Geoffroy's bat, Myotis emarginatus, preys preferentially on spiders in multistratified dense habitats: a study of foraging bats in the Mediterranean , 2011, Folia Zoologica.

[73]  Gareth Jones,et al.  Taxon‐specific PCR for DNA barcoding arthropod prey in bat faeces , 2011, Molecular ecology resources.

[74]  P. Hebert,et al.  Species on the menu of a generalist predator, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis): using a molecular approach to detect arthropod prey , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[75]  S. Jarman,et al.  Blocking primers to enhance PCR amplification of rare sequences in mixed samples – a case study on prey DNA in Antarctic krill stomachs , 2008, Frontiers in Zoology.

[76]  Dennis A. Benson,et al.  GenBank , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[77]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  A minimalist barcode can identify a specimen whose DNA is degraded , 2006 .

[78]  B. Deagle,et al.  Quantification of damage in DNA recovered from highly degraded samples – a case study on DNA in faeces , 2006, Frontiers in Zoology.

[79]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  Biological identifications through DNA barcodes , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[80]  K. Katoh,et al.  MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[81]  Jizhong Zhou,et al.  Evaluation of PCR-Generated Chimeras, Mutations, and Heteroduplexes with 16S rRNA Gene-Based Cloning , 2001, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[82]  R. Vrijenhoek,et al.  DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. , 1994, Molecular marine biology and biotechnology.

[83]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[84]  Gareth Jones,et al.  Prey Selection by the Greater Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum): Optimal Foraging by Echolocation? , 1990 .

[85]  H. Buckley,et al.  Methods for the extraction, storage, amplification and sequencing of DNA from environmental samples , 2018 .

[86]  H. Seliger PCR protocols — A guide to methods and applications , 1990 .

[87]  C. Quince,et al.  Distributed under Creative Commons Cc-by 4.0 Swarm: Robust and Fast Clustering Method for Amplicon-based Studies , 2022 .

[88]  Ben Nichols,et al.  Distributed under Creative Commons Cc-by 4.0 Vsearch: a Versatile Open Source Tool for Metagenomics , 2022 .