Decision making and best practices for taxonomy-free eDNA metabarcoding in biomonitoring using Hill numbers

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding raises expectations for biomonitoring to cover organisms that have hitherto been neglected or excluded. To bypass current limitations in taxonomic assignments due to incomplete or erroneous reference data bases, taxonomic-free approaches are proposed for biomonitoring at the level of operational taxonomic unites (OTUs). However, this is challenging, because OTUs cannot be annotated and directly compared to classically derived data. The application of good stringency treatments to infer validity of OTUs and the clear understanding of the consequences to such treatments is thus especially relevant for biodiversity assessments. We investigated how common practices of stringency filtering affect diversity estimates based on Hill numbers derived from eDNA samples. We collected eDNA at 61 sites across a 740 km2 river catchment, reflecting a spatially realistic scenario in biomonitoring. After bioinformatic processing of the data, we studied how different stringency treatments affect conclusions with respect to biodiversity at the catchment and site levels. The applied stringency treatments were based on the consistent appearance of OTUs across filter replicates, a relative abundance cut-off and rarefaction. We detected large differences in diversity estimates when accounting for presence/absence only, such that the detected diversity at the catchment scale differed by an order of magnitude between the treatments. These differences disappeared between the stringency treatments with increasing weighting of the OTUs’ abundances. Our study demonstrated the usefulness of Hill numbers for comparisons between data sets with large differences in diversity, and suggests best practice for data stringency filtering for biomonitoring.

[1]  P. Weinstein,et al.  Steps towards a more efficient use of chironomids as bioindicators for freshwater bioassessment: Exploiting eDNA and other genetic tools , 2020 .

[2]  Xiaowei Zhang,et al.  Uncovering the complete biodiversity structure in spatial networks: the example of riverine systems , 2020, Oikos.

[3]  Arne J. Beermann,et al.  Analysis of 13,312 benthic invertebrate samples from German streams reveals minor deviations in ecological status class between abundance and presence/absence data , 2019, PloS one.

[4]  B. Ferrari,et al.  Testing different (e)DNA metabarcoding approaches to assess aquatic oligochaete diversity and the biological quality of sediments , 2019, Ecological Indicators.

[5]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Gaps in DNA-Based Biomonitoring Across the Globe , 2019, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[6]  Emanuel A. Fronhofer,et al.  Assessing different components of diversity across a river network using eDNA , 2019, Environmental DNA.

[7]  Antton Alberdi,et al.  A guide to the application of Hill numbers to DNA‐based diversity analyses , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[8]  Alexander M. Weigand,et al.  DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work , 2019, bioRxiv.

[9]  Antton Alberdi,et al.  hilldiv: an R package for the integral analysis of diversity based on Hill numbers , 2019 .

[10]  Hans-Peter Grossart,et al.  Environmental DNA Time Series in Ecology. , 2018, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  M. Schilthuizen,et al.  The influence of macroinvertebrate abundance on the assessment of freshwater quality in The Netherlands , 2018, Metabarcoding and Metagenomics.

[12]  Pedro Beja,et al.  The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  F. Leese,et al.  Comparison of environmental DNA and bulk‐sample metabarcoding using highly degenerate cytochrome c oxidase I primers , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[14]  N. Gotelli,et al.  Embracing scale-dependence to achieve a deeper understanding of biodiversity and its change across communities , 2018, bioRxiv.

[15]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Environmental DNA: For Biodiversity Research and Monitoring , 2018 .

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

[17]  T. Porter,et al.  Scaling up: A guide to high‐throughput genomic approaches for biodiversity analysis , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[18]  Philippe Esling,et al.  Taxonomy‐free molecular diatom index for high‐throughput eDNA biomonitoring , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[19]  Kristy Deiner,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[20]  Kristian Meissner,et al.  Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding‐based macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring , 2017 .

[21]  F. Leese,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of rivers: Not all eDNA is everywhere, and not all the time , 2017, bioRxiv.

[22]  Nancy Knowlton,et al.  Random sampling causes the low reproducibility of rare eukaryotic OTUs in Illumina COI metabarcoding , 2017, PeerJ.

[23]  M. Miya,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[24]  Yiyuan Li,et al.  Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: effects of sampling design and bioinformatic filtering , 2017 .

[25]  A. Chao,et al.  iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers) , 2016 .

[26]  Sanghoon Kang,et al.  Hill number as a bacterial diversity measure framework with high-throughput sequence data , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[27]  Robert C. Edgar,et al.  UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing , 2016, bioRxiv.

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

[29]  Emanuel A. Fronhofer,et al.  Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information , 2016, Nature Communications.

[30]  P. Burkhardt-Holm,et al.  An eDNA Assay to Monitor a Globally Invasive Fish Species from Flowing Freshwater , 2016, PloS one.

[31]  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.

[32]  L. Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil,et al.  Environmental Monitoring: Inferring the Diatom Index from Next-Generation Sequencing Data. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[33]  Michael Bunce,et al.  From Benchtop to Desktop: Important Considerations when Designing Amplicon Sequencing Workflows , 2015, PloS one.

[34]  Ruth D Gates,et al.  The coral core microbiome identifies rare bacterial taxa as ubiquitous endosymbionts , 2015, The ISME Journal.

[35]  Todd W. Pierson,et al.  The effect of dilution and the use of a post-extraction nucleic acid purification column on the accuracy, precision, and inhibition of environmental DNA samples , 2015 .

[36]  Kristy Deiner,et al.  Special Issue Article: Environmental DNA Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA , 2015 .

[37]  Anne Chao,et al.  Unifying Species Diversity, Phylogenetic Diversity, Functional Diversity, and Related Similarity and Differentiation Measures Through Hill Numbers , 2014 .

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

[39]  M. Sogin,et al.  A single genus in the gut microbiome reflects host preference and specificity , 2014, The ISME Journal.

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

[41]  F. Altermatt,et al.  River network properties shape α‐diversity and community similarity patterns of aquatic insect communities across major drainage basins , 2013 .

[42]  Susan P. Holmes,et al.  Waste Not , Want Not : Why Rarefying Microbiome Data is Inadmissible . October 1 , 2013 , 2013 .

[43]  J. Geller,et al.  Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all‐taxa biotic surveys , 2013, Molecular ecology resources.

[44]  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.

[45]  Aibin Zhan,et al.  High sensitivity of 454 pyrosequencing for detection of rare species in aquatic communities , 2013 .

[46]  Susan Holmes,et al.  phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data , 2013, PloS one.

[47]  A. Chao,et al.  Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. , 2012, Ecology.

[48]  Nicholas A. Bokulich,et al.  Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing , 2012, Nature Methods.

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

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

[51]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages , 2012 .

[52]  A. Magurran,et al.  Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment , 2011 .

[53]  P. McIntyre,et al.  Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity , 2010, Nature.

[54]  Jane Jamieson,et al.  Assessment of ecological status in UK rivers using diatoms , 2007 .

[55]  L. Jost Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. , 2007, Ecology.

[56]  M. Furse,et al.  Ecological relationships between stream communities and spatial scale: implications for designing catchment‐level monitoring programmes , 2007 .

[57]  Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz,et al.  Assessment of european streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish : a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress , 2006 .

[58]  R. Naiman,et al.  Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[59]  Mark Blaxter,et al.  Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[60]  D. Hering,et al.  Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a practical standardised protocol for macroinvertebrate sampling and sorting , 2004 .

[61]  I. Good,et al.  Turing’s anticipation of empirical bayes in connection with the cryptanalysis of the naval enigma , 2000 .

[62]  Nicholas J. Gotelli,et al.  A Primer of Ecology , 1995 .

[63]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[64]  S. P. Ferraro,et al.  Power-Cost Efficiency of Eight Macrobenthic Sampling Schemes in Puget Sound, Washington, USA , 1989 .

[65]  M. Hill Diversity and Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences , 1973 .

[66]  I. Good THE POPULATION FREQUENCIES OF SPECIES AND THE ESTIMATION OF POPULATION PARAMETERS , 1953 .

[67]  Florian Altermatt,et al.  Aquatische Monitoringprogramme NAWA und BDM. Synergien, Strategien und Visionen , 2019 .

[68]  Belma Kalamujić Stroil,et al.  Why We Need Sustainable Networks Bridging Countries, Disciplines, Cultures and Generations for Aquatic Biomonitoring 2.0: A Perspective Derived From the DNAqua-Net COST Action , 2018 .

[69]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[70]  P. Manley,et al.  The Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Protocol: A Population, Community, and Biodiversity Monitoring Solution for National Forest System Lands , 2006 .

[71]  Kevin M. Clarke,et al.  Estimating Species Richness , 2005 .

[72]  J. Willis Aiming higher. , 1991, Nursing Times.

[73]  D. Simberloff Use of Rarefaction and Related Methods in Ecology , 1978 .