Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMajaneva, Markus
dc.contributor.authorDiserud, Ola Håvard
dc.contributor.authorHajibabaei, Mehrdad
dc.contributor.authorEagle, Shannon
dc.contributor.authorEkrem, Torbjørn
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-27T12:49:58Z
dc.date.available2018-08-27T12:49:58Z
dc.date.created2018-08-23T19:33:42Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn2534-9708
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2559445
dc.description.abstractCharacterisation of freshwater benthic biodiversity using DNA metabarcoding may allow more cost-effective environmental assessments than the current morphological-based assessment methods. DNA metabarcoding methods where sorting or pre-sorting of samples are avoided altogether are especially interesting, since the time between sampling and taxonomic identification is reduced. Due to the presence of non-target material like plants and sediments in crude samples, DNA extraction protocols become important for maximising DNA recovery and sample replicability. We sampled freshwater invertebrates from six river and lake sites and extracted DNA from homogenised bulk samples in quadruplicate subsamples, using a published method and two commercially available kits: HotSHOT approach, Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit and Qiagen DNeasy PowerPlant Pro Kit. The performance of the selected extraction methods was evaluated by measuring DNA yield and applying DNA metabarcoding to see if the choice of DNA extraction method affects DNA yield and metazoan diversity results. The PowerPlant Kit extractions resulted in the highest DNA yield and a strong significant correlation between sample weight and DNA yield, while the DNA yields of the Blood & Tissue Kit and HotSHOT method did not correlate with the sample weights. Metazoan diversity measures were more repeatable in samples extracted with the PowerPlant Kit compared to those extracted with the HotSHOT method or the Blood & Tissue Kit. Subsampling using Blood & Tissue Kit and HotSHOT extraction failed to describe the same community in the lake samples. Our study exemplifies that the choice of DNA extraction protocol influences the DNA yield as well as the subsequent community analysis. Based on our results, low specimen abundance samples will likely provide more stable results if specimens are sorted prior to DNA extraction and DNA metabarcoding, but the repeatability of the DNA extraction and DNA metabarcoding results was close to ideal in high specimen abundance samples.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherPensoft Publishersnb_NO
dc.relation.urihttps://mbmg.pensoft.net/article/26664/list/9/
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleChoice of DNA extraction method affects DNA metabarcoding of unsorted invertebrate bulk samplesnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.volume2nb_NO
dc.source.journalMetabarcoding and Metagenomics (MBMG)nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.3897/mbmg.2.26664
dc.identifier.cristin1604156
dc.relation.projectMiljødirektoratet: 15040013nb_NO
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 243791nb_NO
dc.description.localcodeCopyright Markus Majaneva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,31,10,0
cristin.unitcode194,63,15,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for naturhistorie
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for matematiske fag
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal