Agata Weydmann-Zwolicka, Anna Maria Dąbrowska, Monika Mioduchowska, Adrian Zwolicki
{"title":"Comparison of DNA metabarcoding and microscopy in analysing planktonic protists from the European Arctic","authors":"Agata Weydmann-Zwolicka, Anna Maria Dąbrowska, Monika Mioduchowska, Adrian Zwolicki","doi":"10.1007/s12526-024-01436-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the era of climate change-related restructuring of planktonic protist communities, it is especially important to identify possible shifts in their taxonomic composition. While traditional microscopy-based morphological classification is time-consuming and requires experienced taxonomists, metabarcoding seems to substantially accelerate the determination of taxonomic composition. In this study, based on samples collected in summer 2019 from the West Spitsbergen Current, we analysed planktonic protists using both methods. Metabarcoding, based on high-throughput sequencing of the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene, resulted in a much higher number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and sample diversity than microscopy, although the resolution of taxonomic identification ranged from species to phyla. Most morphology-based identification was performed at the species or genus level, additionally allowing us to include information about dominants and size fractions. The highest proportion of 45% shared taxa by both methods was recorded at the class level. The composition of dominant protists differed between the approaches, with most similarities being observed in Bacillariophyceae, for which two genera, <i>Thalassiosira</i> and <i>Eucampia</i>, were found to be the most abundant with both methods. For Dinophyceae, the most abundant representatives identified by microscopy were <i>Gymnodinium</i> spp., <i>Prorocentrum minimum</i> and <i>Gonyaulax gracilis</i>, while in the metabarcoding approach, most dinoflagellates were identified to the class level only. Given the different levels of accuracy of taxonomic determinations and possible biases in results connected to the chosen methodology, we advocate using an integrative taxonomic approach for the classification of planktonic protists based on the combination of microscopy and molecular methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":18201,"journal":{"name":"Marine Biodiversity","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Biodiversity","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-024-01436-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the era of climate change-related restructuring of planktonic protist communities, it is especially important to identify possible shifts in their taxonomic composition. While traditional microscopy-based morphological classification is time-consuming and requires experienced taxonomists, metabarcoding seems to substantially accelerate the determination of taxonomic composition. In this study, based on samples collected in summer 2019 from the West Spitsbergen Current, we analysed planktonic protists using both methods. Metabarcoding, based on high-throughput sequencing of the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene, resulted in a much higher number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and sample diversity than microscopy, although the resolution of taxonomic identification ranged from species to phyla. Most morphology-based identification was performed at the species or genus level, additionally allowing us to include information about dominants and size fractions. The highest proportion of 45% shared taxa by both methods was recorded at the class level. The composition of dominant protists differed between the approaches, with most similarities being observed in Bacillariophyceae, for which two genera, Thalassiosira and Eucampia, were found to be the most abundant with both methods. For Dinophyceae, the most abundant representatives identified by microscopy were Gymnodinium spp., Prorocentrum minimum and Gonyaulax gracilis, while in the metabarcoding approach, most dinoflagellates were identified to the class level only. Given the different levels of accuracy of taxonomic determinations and possible biases in results connected to the chosen methodology, we advocate using an integrative taxonomic approach for the classification of planktonic protists based on the combination of microscopy and molecular methods.
期刊介绍:
Marine Biodiversity is a peer-reviewed international journal devoted to all aspects of biodiversity research on marine ecosystems. The journal is a relaunch of the well-known Senckenbergiana maritima" and covers research at gene, species and ecosystem level that focuses on describing the actors (genes and species), the patterns (gradients and distributions) and understanding of the processes responsible for the regulation and maintenance of diversity in marine systems. Also included are the study of species interactions (symbioses, parasitism, etc.) and the role of species in structuring marine ecosystem functioning.
Marine Biodiversity offers articles in the category original paper, short note, Oceanarium and review article. It forms a platform for marine biodiversity researchers from all over the world for the exchange of new information and discussions on concepts and exciting discoveries.
- Covers research in all aspects of biodiversity in marine ecosystems
- Describes the actors, the patterns and the processes responsible for diversity
- Offers peer-reviewed original papers, short communications, review articles and news (Oceanarium)
- No page charges