4.7 Review

Strategies for sample labelling and library preparation in DNA metabarcoding studies

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 1231-1246

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13512

Keywords

amplicon sequencing; biodiversity assessment; eDNA; environmental DNA; high-throughput sequencing; Illumina sequencing; library preparation

Funding

  1. NERC Biomolecular Analysis Facility [NE/M02086X/1, NE/N003756/1, NE/N006216/1, NE/S000291/1, NE/S005560/1, NE/S006958/1]
  2. Carlsbergfondet [CF18-1110]
  3. H2020 European Research Council [856488]
  4. Det Frie Forskningsrad [5051-00140]
  5. Wellcome [WT207492, 104640/Z/14/Z, 092096/Z/10/Z]
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N003756/1, NE/N005678/1, NE/N006216/1, NE/N001710/1, NE/N002105/1, NE/N002431/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Wellcome Trust [092096/Z/10/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [856488] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metabarcoding of DNA from environmental or bulk samples is a valuable tool for biodiversity research, but different experimental strategies have their own advantages, challenges, and limitations. Ensuring data reliability is crucial for practitioners using this method.
Metabarcoding of DNA extracted from environmental or bulk specimen samples is increasingly used to profile biota in basic and applied biodiversity research because of its targeted nature that allows sequencing of genetic markers from many samples in parallel. To achieve this, PCR amplification is carried out with primers designed to target a taxonomically informative marker within a taxonomic group, and sample-specific nucleotide identifiers are added to the amplicons prior to sequencing. The latter enables assignment of the sequences back to the samples they originated from. Nucleotide identifiers can be added during the metabarcoding PCR and during library preparation, that is, when amplicons are prepared for sequencing. Different strategies to achieve this labelling exist. All have advantages, challenges and limitations, some of which can lead to misleading results, and in the worst case compromise the fidelity of the metabarcoding data. Given the range of questions addressed using metabarcoding, ensuring that data generation is robust and fit for the chosen purpose is critically important for practitioners seeking to employ metabarcoding for biodiversity assessments. Here, we present an overview of the three main workflows for sample-specific labelling and library preparation in metabarcoding studies on Illumina sequencing platforms; one-step PCR, two-step PCR, and tagged PCR. Further, we distill the key considerations for researchers seeking to select an appropriate metabarcoding strategy for their specific study. Ultimately, by gaining insights into the consequences of different metabarcoding workflows, we hope to further consolidate the power of metabarcoding as a tool to assess biodiversity across a range of applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available