Navigating Past Oceans: Comparing Metabarcoding and Metagenomics of Marine Ancient Sediment Environmental DNA.

IF 5.5 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Luke E Holman, Giulia Zampirolo, Richard Gyllencreutz, James Scourse, Tobias Frøslev, Christian Carøe, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Kristine Bohmann
{"title":"Navigating Past Oceans: Comparing Metabarcoding and Metagenomics of Marine Ancient Sediment Environmental DNA.","authors":"Luke E Holman, Giulia Zampirolo, Richard Gyllencreutz, James Scourse, Tobias Frøslev, Christian Carøe, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Kristine Bohmann","doi":"10.1111/1755-0998.14086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The condition of ancient marine ecosystems provides context for contemporary biodiversity changes in human-impacted oceans. Sequencing sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) is an emerging method for generating high-resolution biodiversity time-series data, offering insights into past ecosystems. However, few studies directly compare the two predominant sedaDNA sequencing approaches: metabarcoding and shotgun-metagenomics, and it remains unclear if these methodological differences affect diversity metrics. We compared these methods using sedaDNA from an archived marine sediment record sampled in the Skagerrak, North Sea, spanning almost 8000 years. We performed metabarcoding of a eukaryotic 18S rRNA region (V9) and sequenced 153-229 million metagenomic reads per sample. Our results show limited overlap between metabarcoding and metagenomics, with only three metazoan genera detected by both methods. For overlapping taxa, metabarcoding detections became inconsistent for samples older than 2000 years, while metagenomics detected taxa throughout the time series. We observed divergent patterns of alpha diversity, with metagenomics indicating decreased richness towards the present and metabarcoding showing an increase. However, beta diversity patterns were similar between methods, with discrepancies only in metazoan data comparisons. Our findings demonstrate that the choice of sequencing method significantly impacts detected biodiversity in an ancient marine sediment record. While we stress that studies with limited variation in DNA degradation among samples may not be strongly affected, researchers should exonerate methodological explanations for observed biodiversity changes in marine sediment cores, particularly when considering alpha diversity, before making ecological interpretations.</p>","PeriodicalId":211,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Ecology Resources","volume":" ","pages":"e14086"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Ecology Resources","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.14086","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The condition of ancient marine ecosystems provides context for contemporary biodiversity changes in human-impacted oceans. Sequencing sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) is an emerging method for generating high-resolution biodiversity time-series data, offering insights into past ecosystems. However, few studies directly compare the two predominant sedaDNA sequencing approaches: metabarcoding and shotgun-metagenomics, and it remains unclear if these methodological differences affect diversity metrics. We compared these methods using sedaDNA from an archived marine sediment record sampled in the Skagerrak, North Sea, spanning almost 8000 years. We performed metabarcoding of a eukaryotic 18S rRNA region (V9) and sequenced 153-229 million metagenomic reads per sample. Our results show limited overlap between metabarcoding and metagenomics, with only three metazoan genera detected by both methods. For overlapping taxa, metabarcoding detections became inconsistent for samples older than 2000 years, while metagenomics detected taxa throughout the time series. We observed divergent patterns of alpha diversity, with metagenomics indicating decreased richness towards the present and metabarcoding showing an increase. However, beta diversity patterns were similar between methods, with discrepancies only in metazoan data comparisons. Our findings demonstrate that the choice of sequencing method significantly impacts detected biodiversity in an ancient marine sediment record. While we stress that studies with limited variation in DNA degradation among samples may not be strongly affected, researchers should exonerate methodological explanations for observed biodiversity changes in marine sediment cores, particularly when considering alpha diversity, before making ecological interpretations.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Molecular Ecology Resources
Molecular Ecology Resources 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
5.20%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Molecular Ecology Resources promotes the creation of comprehensive resources for the scientific community, encompassing computer programs, statistical and molecular advancements, and a diverse array of molecular tools. Serving as a conduit for disseminating these resources, the journal targets a broad audience of researchers in the fields of evolution, ecology, and conservation. Articles in Molecular Ecology Resources are crafted to support investigations tackling significant questions within these disciplines. In addition to original resource articles, Molecular Ecology Resources features Reviews, Opinions, and Comments relevant to the field. The journal also periodically releases Special Issues focusing on resource development within specific areas.
×
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