Comparative analysis of phytoplankton diversity using microscopy and metabarcoding: insights from an eLTER station in the Northern Adriatic Sea

IF 2.2 3区 生物学 Q1 MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
Francesca Neri, Marika Ubaldi, Stefano Accoroni, Sara Ricci, Elisa Banchi, Tiziana Romagnoli, Cecilia Totti
{"title":"Comparative analysis of phytoplankton diversity using microscopy and metabarcoding: insights from an eLTER station in the Northern Adriatic Sea","authors":"Francesca Neri, Marika Ubaldi, Stefano Accoroni, Sara Ricci, Elisa Banchi, Tiziana Romagnoli, Cecilia Totti","doi":"10.1007/s10750-024-05692-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The monitoring of phytoplankton is crucial to highlight changes in the marine ecosystems. In the present study, the phytoplankton community of an eLTER station in the Northern Adriatic Sea was analysed combining two approaches, i.e. microscopy and eDNA metabarcoding (targeting V4 and V9 regions of the 18S rRNA gene, and using PR2 and SILVA as reference databases), to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these two methods. Metabarcoding revealed a so far unknown phytoplankton diversity (99 genera and 151 species), while microscopy detected 14 genera and 44 species not revealed by metabarcoding. Only a small percentage of genera and species were shared by the two methods (microscopy and metabarcoding), 18S regions (V4 and V9) and reference databases (PR2 and SILVA). Metabarcoding showed a community characterized by a higher number of phytoflagellate and dinoflagellate genera and species, in comparison with microscopy where diatom and dinoflagellate taxa were the most represented. Moreover, metabarcoding failed to reveal almost all the coccolithophores. The results confirmed metabarcoding as a powerful tool, but it should still be combined with microscopy to have a more detailed information on the community and to counteract the drawbacks of metabarcoding, such as gaps in the reference databases.</p>","PeriodicalId":13147,"journal":{"name":"Hydrobiologia","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hydrobiologia","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-024-05692-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The monitoring of phytoplankton is crucial to highlight changes in the marine ecosystems. In the present study, the phytoplankton community of an eLTER station in the Northern Adriatic Sea was analysed combining two approaches, i.e. microscopy and eDNA metabarcoding (targeting V4 and V9 regions of the 18S rRNA gene, and using PR2 and SILVA as reference databases), to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these two methods. Metabarcoding revealed a so far unknown phytoplankton diversity (99 genera and 151 species), while microscopy detected 14 genera and 44 species not revealed by metabarcoding. Only a small percentage of genera and species were shared by the two methods (microscopy and metabarcoding), 18S regions (V4 and V9) and reference databases (PR2 and SILVA). Metabarcoding showed a community characterized by a higher number of phytoflagellate and dinoflagellate genera and species, in comparison with microscopy where diatom and dinoflagellate taxa were the most represented. Moreover, metabarcoding failed to reveal almost all the coccolithophores. The results confirmed metabarcoding as a powerful tool, but it should still be combined with microscopy to have a more detailed information on the community and to counteract the drawbacks of metabarcoding, such as gaps in the reference databases.

Abstract Image

利用显微镜和代谢编码对浮游植物多样性进行比较分析:北亚得里亚海 eLTER 站的启示
浮游植物的监测对突出海洋生态系统的变化至关重要。在本研究中,结合显微镜和 eDNA 代谢编码(以 18S rRNA 基因的 V4 和 V9 区域为目标,以 PR2 和 SILVA 作为参考数据库)两种方法对北亚得里亚海 eLTER 站的浮游植物群落进行了分析,以突出这两种方法的优缺点。元条码揭示了迄今未知的浮游植物多样性(99 个属和 151 个种),而显微镜检测则发现了元条码未揭示的 14 个属和 44 个种。两种方法(显微镜和元标码)、18S 区域(V4 和 V9)以及参考数据库(PR2 和 SILVA)中只有一小部分属和种是相同的。与显微镜下硅藻和甲藻类群数量最多的方法相比,元标码法显示的群落特征是植物鞭毛虫和甲藻属和种的数量较多。此外,元标定技术也未能发现几乎所有的藻类。研究结果证实了元条码是一种强大的工具,但仍应将其与显微镜相结合,以获得更详细的群落信息,并克服元条码的缺点,如参考数据库的空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hydrobiologia
Hydrobiologia 生物-海洋与淡水生物学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
11.50%
发文量
288
审稿时长
4.9 months
期刊介绍: Hydrobiologia publishes original research, reviews and opinions regarding the biology of all aquatic environments, including the impact of human activities. We welcome molecular-, organism-, community- and ecosystem-level studies in contributions dealing with limnology and oceanography, including systematics and aquatic ecology. Hypothesis-driven experimental research is preferred, but also theoretical papers or articles with large descriptive content will be considered, provided they are made relevant to a broad hydrobiological audience. Applied aspects will be considered if firmly embedded in an ecological context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信