Recommendations for the preservation of environmental samples in diatom metabarcoding studies

Abstract

Implementation of DNA metabarcoding for diatoms for environmental monitoring is now moving from a research to an operational phase, requiring rigorous guidelines and standards. In particular, the first steps of the diatom metabarcoding process, which consist of sampling and storage, have been addressed in various ways in scientific and pilot studies and now need to be rationalised. The objective of this study was to compare three currently applied preservation protocols through different storage durations (ranging from one day to one year) for phytobenthos and phytoplankton samples intended for diatom DNA metabarcoding analysis. The experimental design used samples from four freshwater and two marine sites of diverse ecological characteristics. The impact of the sample preservation and storage duration was assessed through diatom metabarcoding endpoints: DNA quality and quantity, diversity and richness, diatom assemblage composition and ecological index values (for freshwater samples). The yield and quality of extracted DNA only decreased for freshwater phytobenthos samples preserved with ethanol. Diatom diversity was not affected and their taxonomic composition predominantly reflected the site origin. Only rare taxa (< 100 reads) differed among preservation methods and storage durations. For biomonitoring purposes, freshwater ecological index values were not affected by the preservation method and storage duration tested (including ethanol preservation), all treatments returning the same ecological status for a site. This study contributes to consolidating diatom metabarcoding. Thus, accompanied by operational standards, the method will be ready to be confidently deployed and prescribed in future regulatory monitoring.

Which barcode to decipher freshwater microalgal assemblages? Tests on mock communities

“…Recently, handbooks for DNA-based methods in aquatic monitoring have been released (e.g. Bruce et al, 2021;Jerney et al, 2022); inter-laboratory comparisons have been conducted (Baričević et al, 2022;Vasselon et al, 2021). Going to international standards will require next steps as done for example at the European standardisation level (CEN) for diatoms metabarcoding (e.g.…”

A metabarcode based (species) inventory of the northern Adriatic phytoplankton

“…Concentrated samples were collected in 500 ml plastic bottles and filtered on 1.2 μm cellulose ester membranes (47 mm, Whatman, UK) until complete filter saturation (total volume ranging from 20 ml up to 150 ml). Filters were stored in small Petri dishes, at -80°C as suggested by Baricevic et al (2022) until further lab processing.…”

A comparison of two gene regions for assessing community composition of eukaryotic marine microalgae from coastal ecosystems

“…The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) and metabarcoding for characterising EMC composition and diversity are quickly becoming standard approaches, with research focus shifting to optimisation of techniques, including the assessment of sampling methods 33 , 34 , improvement in preservation and extraction techniques 35 , 36 , and development of bioinformatic pipelines 37 , 38 . Selection of gene regions, primers and understanding of the bias they introduce are important considerations when using molecular techniques 39 , with taxonomic resolution and the availability of reference sequences also influencing results 16 , 40 .…”