Comparing diversity levels in environmental samples: DNA sequence capture and metabarcoding approaches using 18S and COI genes. (24th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Giebner, Hendrik; Langen, Kathrin; Bourlat, Sarah J.; Kukowka, Sandra; Mayer, Christoph; Astrin, Jonas J.; Misof, Bernhard; Fonseca, Vera G.
• Is Part Of: Molecular ecology resources. Volume 20:Number 5(2020:Sep.)
• Page Start: 1333
• Page End: 1345
• Publication Date: 2020-06-24
• Subjects: 18S and COI amplicons -- ASVs -- dada2 -- DNA sequence capture -- eDNA -- eukaryotic diversity -- metabarcoding -- OTUs; Molecular ecology -- Periodicals; 572.8
• DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13201
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1755-098X

Abstract

Abstract: Environmental DNA studies targeting multiple taxa using metabarcoding provide remarkable insights into levels of species diversity in any habitat. The main drawbacks are the presence of primer bias and difficulty in identifying rare species. We tested a DNA sequence‐capture method in parallel with the metabarcoding approach to reveal possible advantages of one method over the other. Both approaches were performed using the same eDNA samples and the same 18S and COI regions, followed by high throughput sequencing. Metabarcoded eDNA libraries were PCR amplified with one primer pair from 18S and COI genes. DNA sequence‐capture libraries were enriched with 3, 639 baits targeting the same gene regions. We tested amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in silico approaches for both markers and methods, using for this purpose the metabarcoding data set. ASVs methods uncovered more species for the COI gene, whereas the opposite occurred for the 18S gene, suggesting that clustering reads into OTUs could bias diversity richness especially using 18S with relaxed thresholds. Additionally, metabarcoding and DNA sequence‐capture recovered 80%–90% of the control sample species. DNA sequence‐capture was 8x more expensive, nonetheless it identified 1.5x more species for COI and 13x more genera for 18S than metabarcoding. Both approaches offer reliable results, sharing ca. 40% species and 72% families and retrieve more taxa when nuclear and mitochondrial markers are combined. eDNA metabarcoding is quite well established and low‐cost, whereas DNA‐sequence capture for biodiversity assessment is still in its infancy, is more time‐consuming but provides more taxonomic assignments.