Monitoring the ecological status of rivers with diatom eDNA metabarcoding: a comparison of taxonomic markers and analytical approaches for the inference of a molecular diatom index

International audienceRecently, several studies demonstrated the usefulness of diatom eDNA metabarcoding as an alternative to assess the ecological quality of rivers and streams. However, the choice of the taxonomic marker as well as the methodology for data analysis differ between these studies, hampering the comparison of their results and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare two taxonomic markers commonly used in diatom metabarcoding and three distinct analytical approaches to infer a molecular diatom index. We used the values of classical morphological diatom index as a benchmark for this comparison. We amplified and sequenced both a fragment of the rbcL gene and the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene for 112 epilithic samples from Swiss and French rivers. We inferred index values using three analytical approaches: by computing it directly from taxonomically assigned sequences, by calibrating de novo the ecovalues of all metabarcodes, and by using a supervised machine learning algorithm to train predictive models. In general, the values of index obtained using the two "taxonomy-free" approaches, encompassing molecular assignment and machine learning, were closer correlated to the values of the morphological index than the values based on taxonomically assigned sequences. The correlations of the three analytical approaches were higher in the case of rbcL compared to the 18S marker, highlighting the importance of the reference database which is more complete for the rbcL marker. Our study confirms the effectiveness of diatom metabarcoding as an operational tool for rivers ecological quality assessment and shows that the analytical approaches by-passing the taxonomic assignments are particularly efficient when reference databases are incomplete

Environmental DNA metabarcoding for benthic monitoring: A review of sediment sampling and DNA extraction methods

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding (parallel sequencing of DNA/RNA for identification of whole communities within a targeted group) is revolutionizing the field of aquatic biomonitoring. To date, most metabarcoding studies aiming to assess the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems have focused on water eDNA and macroinvertebrate bulk samples. However, the eDNA metabarcoding has also been applied to soft sediment samples, mainly for assessing microbial or meiofaunal biota. Compared to classical methodologies based on manual sorting and morphological identification of benthic taxa, eDNA metabarcoding offers potentially important advantages for assessing the environmental quality of sediments. The methods and protocols utilized for sediment eDNA metabarcoding can vary considerably among studies, and standardization efforts are needed to improve their robustness, comparability and use within regulatory frameworks. Here, we review the available information on eDNA metabarcoding applied to sediment samples, with a focus on sampling, preservation, and DNA extraction steps. We discuss challenges specific to sediment eDNA analysis, including the variety of different sources and states of eDNA and its persistence in the sediment. This paper aims to identify good-practice strategies and facilitate method harmonization for routine use of sediment eDNA in future benthic monitoring

Environmental DNA metabarcoding for benthic monitoring: A review of sediment sampling and DNA extraction methods

International audienceEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding (parallel sequencing of DNA/RNA for identification of whole communities within a targeted group) is revolutionizing the field of aquatic biomonitoring. To date, most metabarcoding studies aiming to assess the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems have focused on water eDNA and macroinvertebrate bulk samples. However, the eDNA metabarcoding has also been applied to soft sediment samples, mainly for assessing microbial or meiofaunal biota. Compared to classical methodologies based on manual sorting and morphological identification of benthic taxa, eDNA metabarcoding offers potentially important advantages for assessing the environmental quality of sediments. The methods and protocols utilized for sediment eDNA metabarcoding can vary considerably among studies, and standardization efforts are needed to improve their robustness, comparability and use within regulatory frameworks. Here, we review the available information on eDNA metabarcoding applied to sediment samples, with a focus on sampling, preservation, and DNA extraction steps. We discuss challenges specific to sediment eDNA analysis, including the variety of different sources and states of eDNA and its persistence in the sediment. This paper aims to identify good-practice strategies and facilitate method harmonization for routine use of sediment eDNA in future benthic monitoring

Environmental DNA metabarcoding for benthic monitoring: A review of sediment sampling and DNA extraction methods

: Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding (parallel sequencing of DNA/RNA for identification of whole communities within a targeted group) is revolutionizing the field of aquatic biomonitoring. To date, most metabarcoding studies aiming to assess the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems have focused on water eDNA and macroinvertebrate bulk samples. However, the eDNA metabarcoding has also been applied to soft sediment samples, mainly for assessing microbial or meiofaunal biota. Compared to classical methodologies based on manual sorting and morphological identification of benthic taxa, eDNA metabarcoding offers potentially important advantages for assessing the environmental quality of sediments. The methods and protocols utilized for sediment eDNA metabarcoding can vary considerably among studies, and standardization efforts are needed to improve their robustness, comparability and use within regulatory frameworks. Here, we review the available information on eDNA metabarcoding applied to sediment samples, with a focus on sampling, preservation, and DNA extraction steps. We discuss challenges specific to sediment eDNA analysis, including the variety of different sources and states of eDNA and its persistence in the sediment. This paper aims to identify good-practice strategies and facilitate method harmonization for routine use of sediment eDNA in future benthic monitoring