Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment

Characterization of biodiversity has been extensively used to confidently monitor and assess environmental status. Yet, visual morphology, traditionally and widely used for species identification in coastal and marine ecosystem communities, is tedious and entails limitations. Metabarcoding coupled with high-throughput sequencing represents an alternative to rapidly, accurately and cost-effectively analyze thousands of environmental samples simultaneously, and this method is increasingly used to characterize the metazoan taxonomic composition of a wide variety of environments. However, a comprehensive study benchmarking visual and metabarcoding-based taxonomic inferences that validates this technique for environmental monitoring is still lacking. Here we compare taxonomic inferences of benthic macroinvertebrate samples of known taxonomic composition obtained using alternative metabarcoding protocols based on a combination of different DNA sources, barcodes of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene and amplification conditions. Our results highlight the influence of the metabarcoding protocol in the obtained taxonomic composition and suggest the better performance of an alternative 313 bp length barcode to the traditionally 658 bp length one used for metazoan metabarcoding. Additionally, we show that a biotic index inferred from the list of macroinvertebrate taxa obtained using DNA-based taxonomic assignments is comparable to that inferred using morphological identification. Thus, our analyses prove metabarcoding valid for environmental status assessment and will contribute to accelerating the implementation of this technique to regular monitoring programs.

[1]  X. Irigoien,et al.  Extracellular DNA amplicon sequencing reveals high levels of benthic eukaryotic diversity in the central Red Sea. , 2016, Marine genomics.

[2]  E. Petit,et al.  The downside of eDNA as a survey tool in water bodies , 2015 .

[3]  Roberto Danovaro,et al.  Simultaneous Recovery of Extracellular and Intracellular DNA Suitable for Molecular Studies from Marine Sediments , 2005, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[4]  M. Raupach,et al.  High-Throughput Sequencing—The Key to Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of Marine Metazoa? , 2015, PloS one.

[5]  M. Thomas P. Gilbert,et al.  Investigating the Potential Use of Environmental DNA (eDNA) for Genetic Monitoring of Marine Mammals , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  C. Meyer Molecular systematics of cowries (Gastropoda: Cypraeidae) and diversification patterns in the tropics , 2003 .

[7]  M. Thomas P. Gilbert,et al.  Environmental genes and genomes: understanding the differences and challenges in the approaches and software for their analyses , 2015, Briefings Bioinform..

[8]  J. Ascher,et al.  Extracellular DNA in soil and sediment: fate and ecological relevance , 2009, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[9]  Leon Metzeling,et al.  Environmental monitoring using next generation sequencing: rapid identification of macroinvertebrate bioindicator species , 2013, Frontiers in Zoology.

[10]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[11]  Ángel Borja,et al.  A Marine Biotic Index to Establish the Ecological Quality of Soft-Bottom Benthos Within European Estuarine and Coastal Environments , 2000 .

[12]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Large-Scale Biomonitoring of Remote and Threatened Ecosystems via High-Throughput Sequencing , 2015, PloS one.

[13]  Adam J. Sepulveda,et al.  Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) , 2013, Freshwater Science.

[14]  Tim Tolker-Nielsen,et al.  Biased 16S rDNA PCR amplification caused by interference from DNA flanking the template region , 1998 .

[15]  R. Mackie,et al.  Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Analysis of 16S Ribosomal DNA Amplicons To Monitor Changes in Fecal Bacterial Populations of Weaning Pigs after Introduction of Lactobacillus reuteri Strain MM53 , 2000, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[16]  G. Robertson,et al.  THE INFAUNAL TROPHIC INDEX (ITI): ITS SUITABILITY FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING , 1999 .

[17]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity , 2015 .

[18]  R. Mackie,et al.  Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis , 2005 .

[19]  R. Valente,et al.  A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  R. Danovaro,et al.  Extracellular DNA Plays a Key Role in Deep-Sea Ecosystem Functioning , 2005, Science.

[21]  Martin Hartmann,et al.  Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities , 2009, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[22]  X. Pochon,et al.  Accurate assessment of the impact of salmon farming on benthic sediment enrichment using foraminiferal metabarcoding. , 2015, Marine pollution bulletin.

[23]  Sujeevan Ratnasingham,et al.  A DNA-Based Registry for All Animal Species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) System , 2013, PloS one.

[24]  Frédéric J. J. Chain,et al.  Metabarcoding reveals strong spatial structure and temporal turnover of zooplankton communities among marine and freshwater ports , 2016 .

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

[26]  Qing Yang,et al.  Ultra-deep sequencing enables high-fidelity recovery of biodiversity for bulk arthropod samples without PCR amplification , 2013, GigaScience.

[27]  Daniel S. Falster,et al.  User's guide to SMATR : standardised major axis tests and routines version 2.0, copyright 2006 , 2006 .

[28]  Matthew J. Colloff,et al.  Ecological assessment of estuarine sediments by pyrosequencing eukaryotic ribosomal DNA , 2010 .

[29]  Philippe Esling,et al.  Environmental Monitoring: Inferring the Diatom Index from Next-Generation Sequencing Data. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[30]  Joslin L. Moore,et al.  The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance , 2005 .

[31]  Xavier Pochon,et al.  Targeted gene enrichment and high‐throughput sequencing for environmental biomonitoring: a case study using freshwater macroinvertebrates , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[32]  Nancy Knowlton,et al.  DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of standardized samples reveal patterns of marine benthic diversity , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  M. Pinheiro,et al.  Metabarcoding Is Powerful yet Still Blind: A Comparative Analysis of Morphological and Molecular Surveys of Seagrass Communities , 2015, PloS one.

[34]  J. Piñol,et al.  Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high‐throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[35]  I. Muxika,et al.  Is there a possibility of ranking benthic quality assessment indices to select the most responsive to different human pressures? , 2015, Marine pollution bulletin.

[36]  Stuart L. Simpson,et al.  Faster, Higher and Stronger? The Pros and Cons of Molecular Faunal Data for Assessing Ecosystem Condition , 2014 .

[37]  David L. Erickson,et al.  DNA barcodes for ecology, evolution, and conservation. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  Christopher Quince,et al.  Metagenetic analysis of patterns of distribution and diversity of marine meiobenthic eukaryotes , 2014 .

[39]  J. Landry,et al.  A universal DNA mini-barcode for biodiversity analysis , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[40]  C. Stamatis,et al.  A new set of 16S rRNA universal primers for identification of animal species , 2014 .

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

[42]  Naiara Rodríguez-Ezpeleta,et al.  Genomics in marine monitoring: new opportunities for assessing marine health status. , 2013, Marine pollution bulletin.

[43]  E. Johnston,et al.  Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. , 2009, Environmental pollution.

[44]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[45]  Brian D. Fath,et al.  Review and evaluation of estuarine biotic indices to assess benthic condition , 2009 .

[46]  Steven Salzberg,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS ORIGINAL PAPER , 2004 .

[47]  M. Westoby,et al.  Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[48]  Louis A. Tremblay,et al.  Molecular genetic tools for environmental monitoring of New Zealand's aquatic habitats, past, present and the future , 2013 .

[49]  R. Danovaro,et al.  Unveiling the Biodiversity of Deep-Sea Nematodes through Metabarcoding: Are We Ready to Bypass the Classical Taxonomy? , 2015, PloS one.

[50]  B. Haas,et al.  Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. , 2011, Genome research.

[51]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through non-destructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol , 2012, BMC Ecology.

[52]  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.

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

[54]  C. Turner,et al.  Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water , 2015 .

[55]  Rita Sipos,et al.  Effect of primer mismatch, annealing temperature and PCR cycle number on 16S rRNA gene-targetting bacterial community analysis. , 2007, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[56]  Jesse A. Port,et al.  Using Environmental DNA to Census Marine Fishes in a Large Mesocosm , 2014, PloS one.

[57]  B. Jørgensen,et al.  Origin, dynamics, and implications of extracellular DNA pools in marine sediments. , 2015, Marine genomics.

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

[59]  C. Davy,et al.  Development and Validation of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Markers for Detection of Freshwater Turtles , 2015, PloS one.

[60]  M. Úriz,et al.  Deep-Sea, Deep-Sequencing: Metabarcoding Extracellular DNA from Sediments of Marine Canyons , 2015, PloS one.

[61]  Á. Borja,et al.  Environmental Status Assessment Using DNA Metabarcoding: Towards a Genetics Based Marine Biotic Index (gAMBI) , 2014, PloS one.

[62]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Detection of a Diverse Marine Fish Fauna Using Environmental DNA from Seawater Samples , 2012, PloS one.

[63]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  The golden age of DNA metasystematics. , 2012, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[64]  N. Rodríguez‐Ezpeleta,et al.  Analysis of Illumina MiSeq Metabarcoding Data: Application to Benthic Indices for Environmental Monitoring. , 2016, Methods in molecular biology.

[65]  Anastasija Zaiko,et al.  Metabarcoding approach for nonindigenous species surveillance in marine coastal waters. , 2015, Marine pollution bulletin.

[66]  Vasco Elbrecht,et al.  Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol , 2015, PloS one.

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

[68]  Philippe Esling,et al.  Environmental monitoring through protist next‐generation sequencing metabarcoding: assessing the impact of fish farming on benthic foraminifera communities , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[69]  K. Eric Wommack,et al.  Groundtruthing Next-Gen Sequencing for Microbial Ecology–Biases and Errors in Community Structure Estimates from PCR Amplicon Pyrosequencing , 2012, PloS one.

[70]  Ron D. Appel,et al.  ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[71]  Sarah L. Westcott,et al.  Development of a Dual-Index Sequencing Strategy and Curation Pipeline for Analyzing Amplicon Sequence Data on the MiSeq Illumina Sequencing Platform , 2013, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[72]  Gernot Glöckner,et al.  Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[73]  Björn Usadel,et al.  Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data , 2014, Bioinform..

[74]  A. Albaina,et al.  18S rRNA V9 metabarcoding for diet characterization: a critical evaluation with two sympatric zooplanktivorous fish species , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[75]  C. Quince,et al.  Insight into biases and sequencing errors for amplicon sequencing with the Illumina MiSeq platform , 2015, Nucleic acids research.

[76]  Abraham E. Tucker,et al.  Evaluating high‐throughput sequencing as a method for metagenomic analysis of nematode diversity , 2009, Molecular ecology resources.

[77]  Anthony A Chariton,et al.  Metabarcoding of benthic eukaryote communities predicts the ecological condition of estuaries. , 2015, Environmental pollution.

[78]  Philippe Esling,et al.  High-throughput sequencing and morphology perform equally well for benthic monitoring of marine ecosystems , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[79]  R. Danovaro,et al.  Metagenetic tools for the census of marine meiofaunal biodiversity: An overview. , 2015, Marine genomics.

[80]  Frédéric J. J. Chain,et al.  Divergence thresholds and divergent biodiversity estimates: can metabarcoding reliably describe zooplankton communities? , 2015, Ecology and evolution.

[81]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples , 2008, Biology Letters.

[82]  M. Cristescu,et al.  From barcoding single individuals to metabarcoding biological communities: towards an integrative approach to the study of global biodiversity. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[83]  J. Tiedje,et al.  Naïve Bayesian Classifier for Rapid Assignment of rRNA Sequences into the New Bacterial Taxonomy , 2007, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[84]  F. Altermatt,et al.  Utility of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Rare and Indicator Macroinvertebrate Species , 2014, Freshwater Science.

[85]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[86]  X. Pochon,et al.  Evaluating Detection Limits of Next-Generation Sequencing for the Surveillance and Monitoring of International Marine Pests , 2013, PloS one.

[87]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[88]  Brian J Stucky,et al.  SeqTrace: a graphical tool for rapidly processing DNA sequencing chromatograms. , 2012, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.

[89]  L. Raskin,et al.  PCR Biases Distort Bacterial and Archaeal Community Structure in Pyrosequencing Datasets , 2012, PloS one.