PeerJ (Oct 2021)
Pooling size sorted Malaise trap fractions to maximize taxon recovery with metabarcoding
Abstract
Background Small and rare specimens can remain undetected when metabarcoding is applied on bulk samples with a high specimen size heterogeneity. This is especially critical for Malaise trap samples, where most of the biodiversity is contributed by small taxa with low biomass. The separation of samples in different size fractions for downstream analysis is one possibility to increase detection of small and rare taxa. However, experiments systematically testing different size sorting approaches and subsequent proportional pooling of fractions are lacking, but would provide important information for the optimization of metabarcoding protocols. We set out to find a size sorting strategy for Malaise trap samples that maximizes taxonomic recovery but remains scalable and time efficient. Methods Three Malaise trap samples were sorted into four size classes using dry sieving. Each fraction was homogenized and lysed. The corresponding lysates were pooled to simulate unsorted samples. Pooling was additionally conducted in equal proportions and in four different proportions enriching the small size fraction of samples. DNA from the individual size classes as well as the pooled fractions was extracted and metabarcoded using the FwhF2 and Fol-degen-rev primer set. Additionally, alternative wet sieving strategies were explored. Results The small size fractions harboured the highest diversity and were best represented when pooling in favour of small specimens. Metabarcoding of unsorted samples decreases taxon recovery compared to size sorted samples. A size separation into only two fractions (below 4 mm and above) can double taxon recovery compared to not size sorting. However, increasing the sequencing depth 3- to 4-fold can also increase taxon recovery to levels comparable with size sorting, but remains biased towards biomass rich taxa in the sample. Conclusion We demonstrate that size fractionation of Malaise trap bulk samples can increase taxon recovery. While results show distinct patterns, the lack of statistical support due to the limited number of samples processed is a limitation. Due to increased speed and lower risk of cross-contamination as well as specimen damage we recommend wet sieving and proportional pooling of the lysates in favour of the small size fraction (80–90% volume). However, for large-scale projects with time constraints, increasing sequencing depth is an alternative solution.
Keywords
