4.6 Article

Environmental rRNA inventories miss over half of protistan diversity

Journal

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-8-222

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [MCB-0348341]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [STO414/2-1]
  3. Cornell University, New York State
  4. National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The main tool to discover novel microbial eukaryotes is the rRNA approach. This approach has important biases, including PCR discrimination against certain rRNA gene species, which makes molecular inventories skewed relative to the source communities. The degree of this bias has not been quantified, and it remains unclear whether species missed from clone libraries could be recovered by increasing sequencing efforts, or whether they cannot be detected in principle. Here we attempt to discriminate between these possibilities by statistically analysing four protistan inventories obtained using different general eukaryotic PCR primers. Results: We show that each PCR primer set-specific clone library is not a sample from the community diversity but rather from a fraction of this diversity. Therefore, even sequencing such clone libraries to saturation would only recover that fraction, which, according to the parametric models, varies between 17 +/- 4% to 49 +/- 10%, depending on the set of primers. The pooled data is thus qualitatively richer than individual libraries, even if normalized to the same sequencing effort. Conclusion: The use of a single pair of primers leads to significant underestimation of the true community richness at all levels of taxonomic hierarchy. The majority of available protistan rRNA gene surveys likely sampled less than half of the target diversity, and might have completely missed the rest. The use of multiple PCR primers reduces this bias but does not necessarily eliminate it.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available