Data

Data from: Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection

The University of Western Australia
Koziol, Adam ; Stat, Michael ; Simpson, Tiffany ; Jarman, Simon ; DiBattista, Joseph D. ; Harvey, Euan S. ; Marnane, Michael ; McDonald, Justin ; Bunce, Michael
Viewed: [[ro.stat.viewed]] Cited: [[ro.stat.cited]] Accessed: [[ro.stat.accessed]]
ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Adc&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2FANDS&rft_id=info:doi10.5061/dryad.4d3f4g3&rft.title=Data from: Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection&rft.identifier=10.5061/dryad.4d3f4g3&rft.publisher=Dryad Digital Repository&rft.description=Effective biomonitoring is critical for driving management outcomes that ensure long-term sustainability of the marine environment. In recent years environmental DNA (eDNA), coupled with metabarcoding methodologies, has emerged as a promising tool for generating biotic surveys of marine ecosystems, including those under anthropogenic pressure. However, more empirical data is needed on how to best implement eDNA field sampling approaches to maximise their utility for each specific application. The effect of the substrate chosen for eDNA sampling on the diversity of marine taxa detected by DNA metabarcoding has not yet been systematically analysed, despite aquatic systems being those most commonly targeted for eDNA studies. We investigated the effect of four commonly used eDNA substrates to explore taxonomic diversity: (i) surface water, (ii) marine sediment, (iii) settlement-plates and (iv) planktonic tows. With a focus on coastal ports, 332 eDNA samples from Australia (Indian and Southern oceans) and Kazakhstan (Caspian Sea) were collected and analysed by multi-assay DNA metabarcoding. Across study locations, between 30-52% of eukaryotic families detected were unique to a particular substrate and less than 6% of families were found in all four substrates. Taxonomic composition varied significantly depending on the substrate sampled implying that the suitability (and bias) of an eDNA substrate will depend on the focal taxa. These findings demonstrate that single substrate eDNA metabarcoding likely underestimates the total eukaryotic diversity. Future eDNA experimental design should consider incorporating multiple substrates or select substrate(s) best suited to the specific detection of target taxa.,EnvironmentalDNA_SubstrateSelection_Albany_GardenIsland_Ersai_Bautino_CaspianSeaFasta files were generated through usearch9.2 from Miseq .fastq reads. Fasta files are labelled by their unique sample name, place sampled and substrate type. All fasta files were filtered following the methods from the paper Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection,&rft.creator=Koziol, Adam &rft.creator=Stat, Michael &rft.creator=Simpson, Tiffany &rft.creator=Jarman, Simon &rft.creator=DiBattista, Joseph D. &rft.creator=Harvey, Euan S. &rft.creator=Marnane, Michael &rft.creator=McDonald, Justin &rft.creator=Bunce, Michael &rft.date=2018&rft.relation=http://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/580db37c-ff7f-420a-85b3-390e77c44a5a&rft.type=dataset&rft.language=English Access the data

Access:

Open

Full description

Effective biomonitoring is critical for driving management outcomes that ensure long-term sustainability of the marine environment. In recent years environmental DNA (eDNA), coupled with metabarcoding methodologies, has emerged as a promising tool for generating biotic surveys of marine ecosystems, including those under anthropogenic pressure. However, more empirical data is needed on how to best implement eDNA field sampling approaches to maximise their utility for each specific application. The effect of the substrate chosen for eDNA sampling on the diversity of marine taxa detected by DNA metabarcoding has not yet been systematically analysed, despite aquatic systems being those most commonly targeted for eDNA studies. We investigated the effect of four commonly used eDNA substrates to explore taxonomic diversity: (i) surface water, (ii) marine sediment, (iii) settlement-plates and (iv) planktonic tows. With a focus on coastal ports, 332 eDNA samples from Australia (Indian and Southern oceans) and Kazakhstan (Caspian Sea) were collected and analysed by multi-assay DNA metabarcoding. Across study locations, between 30-52% of eukaryotic families detected were unique to a particular substrate and less than 6% of families were found in all four substrates. Taxonomic composition varied significantly depending on the substrate sampled implying that the suitability (and bias) of an eDNA substrate will depend on the focal taxa. These findings demonstrate that single substrate eDNA metabarcoding likely underestimates the total eukaryotic diversity. Future eDNA experimental design should consider incorporating multiple substrates or select substrate(s) best suited to the specific detection of target taxa.,EnvironmentalDNA_SubstrateSelection_Albany_GardenIsland_Ersai_Bautino_CaspianSeaFasta files were generated through usearch9.2 from Miseq .fastq reads. Fasta files are labelled by their unique sample name, place sampled and substrate type. All fasta files were filtered following the methods from the paper "Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection",

Notes

External Organisations
Curtin University; Macquarie University; Department of Primary Industries and Region Development
Associated Persons
Michael Stat (Creator); Tiffany Simpson (Creator); Justin McDonald (Creator)Adam Koziol (Creator); Joseph D. DiBattista (Creator); Michael Marnane (Creator); Michael Bunce (Creator)

Issued: 2018-11-27

Data time period: 2018-11-27 to 2018-11-27

Click to explore relationships graph

User Contributed Tags    

Login to tag this record with meaningful keywords to make it easier to discover

Identifiers