Biology subjects

Geiger, M. F.

Publications and source records attributed to Geiger, M. F..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2022

Recommendations for tissue homogenisation and extraction in DNA metabarcoding of Malaise trap samples

With increased application of DNA metabarcoding in fast and high-resolution biodiversity assessment, various laboratory protocols have been optimised in recent years and their further evaluation is subject of current research. Homogenisation of bulk samples and subsequent DNA extraction from destructed tissue is one way of starting the metabarcoding process. This essential step in the protocol can either be conducted from wet sample material (e.g. bulk insect samples) soaked in fixative or from completely dried individuals. While the latter method appears to produce more consistent results, it is time consuming and more prone to cross-contamination. We tested both homogenisation approaches with regard to time efficiency and biodiversity assessment of complex arthropod bulk samples, in particular how the amount of processed tissue affects taxon recovery. Both approaches reveal similar taxa compositions and detect a similar total OTU diversity in a single extraction reaction. Increased amounts of tissue used in DNA extraction improved OTU diversity detection and recovered particularly specific low-biomass taxa, making this approach valuable for samples with high biomass and/or diversity. Due to less handling time and lower vulnerability for cross-contamination we recommend the processing of wet material when sample homogenisation is applied.

molecular biology↗

bioRxiv2019

DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work

Effective identification of species using short DNA fragments (DNA barcoding and DNA metabarcoding) requires reliable sequence reference libraries of known taxa. Both taxonomically comprehensive coverage and content quality are important for sufficient accuracy. For aquatic ecosystems in Europe, reliable barcode reference libraries are particularly important if molecular identification tools are to be implemented in biomonitoring and reports in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). We analysed gaps in the two most important reference databases, Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) and NCBI GenBank, with a focus on the taxa most frequently used in WFD and MSFD. Our analyses show that coverage varies strongly among taxonomic groups, and among geographic regions. In general, groups that were actively targeted in barcode projects (e.g. fish, true bugs, caddisflies and vascular plants) are well represented in the barcode libraries, while others have fewer records (e.g. marine molluscs, ascidians, and freshwater diatoms). We also found that species monitored in several countries often are represented by barcodes in reference libraries, while species monitored in a single country frequently lack sequence records. A large proportion of species (up to 50%) in several taxonomic groups are only represented by private data in BOLD. Our results have implications for the future strategy to fill existing gaps in barcode libraries, especially if DNA metabarcoding is to be used in the monitoring of European aquatic biota under the WFD and MSFD. For example, missing species relevant to monitoring in multiple countries should be prioritized. We also discuss why a strategy for quality control and quality assurance of barcode reference libraries is needed and recommend future steps to ensure full utilization of metabarcoding in aquatic biomonitoring.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2018

DNA metabarcoding from sample fixative as a quick and voucher preserving biodiversity assessment method

Metabarcoding is a powerful tool for biodiversity assessment and has become increasingly popular in recent years. Although its reliability and applicability have been proven in numerous scientific studies, metabarcoding still suffers from some drawbacks. One is the usually mandatory destruction of specimens before DNA extraction, which is problematic because it does not allow a later taxonomic evaluation of the results. Additionally, metabarcoding often implements a time-consuming step, where specimens need to be separated from substrate or sorted in different size classes. A non-destructive protocol, excluding any sorting step, where the extraction of DNA is conducted from a samples fixative (ethanol) could serve as an alternative. We test an innovative protocol, where the sample preserving ethanol is filtered and DNA extracted from the filter for subsequent DNA metabarcoding. We first tested the general functionality of this approach on 15 mock communities comprising one individual of eight different macroinvertebrate taxa each and tried to increase DNA yield through different treatments (ultrasonic irradiation, shaking, freezing). Application of the method was successful for most of the samples and taxa, but showed weaknesses in detecting mollusc taxa. In a second step, the community composition detected in DNA from ethanol was compared to conventional bulk sample metabarcoding of complex environmental samples. We found that especially taxa with pronounced exoskeleton or shells (Coleoptera, Isopoda) and small taxa (Trombidiformes) were underrepresented in ethanol samples regarding taxa diversity and read numbers. However, read numbers of Diptera (mainly chironomids) and Haplotaxida were higher in ethanol derived DNA samples, which might indicate the detection of stomach content, which would be an additional advantage of this approach. Concerning EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa which are decisive for the determination of ecological statuses, both methods had 46 OTUs in common with 4 unique to the ethanol samples and 10 to the bulk samples. Results indicate that fixative-based metabarcoding is a non-destructive, time-saving alternative for biodiversity assessments focussing on taxa used for ecological status determination. For a comprehensive picture on total biodiversity, the method might however not be sufficient and conventional bulk sample metabarcoding should be applied.

molecular biology↗