Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities

Abstract Biomonitoring approaches and investigations of many ecological questions require assessments of the biodiversity of a given habitat. Small organisms, ranging from protozoans to metazoans, are of great ecological importance and comprise a major share of the planet's biodiversity but the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Janina Schenk, Nils Kleinbölting, Walter Traunspurger
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-03-01
Series:Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6104
id doaj-b4548de06293497f983e7f3c5bea0656
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b4548de06293497f983e7f3c5bea06562021-04-02T11:53:51ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582020-03-011062885289910.1002/ece3.6104Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communitiesJanina Schenk0Nils Kleinbölting1Walter Traunspurger2Department of Animal Ecology Bielefeld University Bielefeld GermanyCenter for Biotechnology Bielefeld University Bielefeld GermanyDepartment of Animal Ecology Bielefeld University Bielefeld GermanyAbstract Biomonitoring approaches and investigations of many ecological questions require assessments of the biodiversity of a given habitat. Small organisms, ranging from protozoans to metazoans, are of great ecological importance and comprise a major share of the planet's biodiversity but they are extremely difficult to identify, due to their minute body sizes and indistinct structures. Thus, most biodiversity studies that include small organisms draw on several methods for species delimitation, ranging from traditional microscopy to molecular techniques. In this study, we compared the efficiency of these methods by analyzing a community of nematodes. Specifically, we evaluated the performances of traditional morphological identification, single‐specimen barcoding (Sanger sequencing), and metabarcoding in the identification of 1500 nematodes from sediment samples. The molecular approaches were based on the analysis of the 28S ribosomal large and 18S small subunits (LSU and SSU). The morphological analysis resulted in the determination of 22 nematode species. Barcoding identified a comparable number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on 28S rDNA (n = 20) and fewer OTUs based on 18S rDNA (n = 12). Metabarcoding identified a higher OTU number but fewer amplicon sequence variants (AVSs) (n = 48 OTUs, n = 17 ASVs for 28S rDNA, and n = 31 OTUs, n = 6 ASVs for 18S rDNA). Between the three approaches (morphology, barcoding, and metabarcoding), only three species (13.6%) were shared. This lack of taxonomic resolution hinders reliable community identifications to the species level. Further database curation will ensure the effective use of molecular species identification.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6104diversitymetazoanmolecular species identificationtaxonomic assignment
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Janina Schenk
Nils Kleinbölting
Walter Traunspurger
spellingShingle Janina Schenk
Nils Kleinbölting
Walter Traunspurger
Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
Ecology and Evolution
diversity
metazoan
molecular species identification
taxonomic assignment
author_facet Janina Schenk
Nils Kleinbölting
Walter Traunspurger
author_sort Janina Schenk
title Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
title_short Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
title_full Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
title_fullStr Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of morphological, DNA barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
title_sort comparison of morphological, dna barcoding, and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities
publisher Wiley
series Ecology and Evolution
issn 2045-7758
publishDate 2020-03-01
description Abstract Biomonitoring approaches and investigations of many ecological questions require assessments of the biodiversity of a given habitat. Small organisms, ranging from protozoans to metazoans, are of great ecological importance and comprise a major share of the planet's biodiversity but they are extremely difficult to identify, due to their minute body sizes and indistinct structures. Thus, most biodiversity studies that include small organisms draw on several methods for species delimitation, ranging from traditional microscopy to molecular techniques. In this study, we compared the efficiency of these methods by analyzing a community of nematodes. Specifically, we evaluated the performances of traditional morphological identification, single‐specimen barcoding (Sanger sequencing), and metabarcoding in the identification of 1500 nematodes from sediment samples. The molecular approaches were based on the analysis of the 28S ribosomal large and 18S small subunits (LSU and SSU). The morphological analysis resulted in the determination of 22 nematode species. Barcoding identified a comparable number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on 28S rDNA (n = 20) and fewer OTUs based on 18S rDNA (n = 12). Metabarcoding identified a higher OTU number but fewer amplicon sequence variants (AVSs) (n = 48 OTUs, n = 17 ASVs for 28S rDNA, and n = 31 OTUs, n = 6 ASVs for 18S rDNA). Between the three approaches (morphology, barcoding, and metabarcoding), only three species (13.6%) were shared. This lack of taxonomic resolution hinders reliable community identifications to the species level. Further database curation will ensure the effective use of molecular species identification.
topic diversity
metazoan
molecular species identification
taxonomic assignment
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6104
work_keys_str_mv AT janinaschenk comparisonofmorphologicaldnabarcodingandmetabarcodingcharacterizationsoffreshwaternematodecommunities
AT nilskleinbolting comparisonofmorphologicaldnabarcodingandmetabarcodingcharacterizationsoffreshwaternematodecommunities
AT waltertraunspurger comparisonofmorphologicaldnabarcodingandmetabarcodingcharacterizationsoffreshwaternematodecommunities
_version_ 1721570963780272128