Validation and development of eDNA metabarcoding primers for comprehensive assessment of Chinese amphibians

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a powerful, non-invasive tool for biodiversity assessments. However, the accuracy and limitations of these assessment techniques are highly dependent on the choice of primer pairs being used. Although several primer sets have been used in eDNA metabarcoding studies of amphibians, there are few comparisons of their reliability and efficiency. Here, we employed lab- and field-tested sets of publicly available and de novo-designed primers in amplifying 83 species of amphibian from all three orders (Anura, Caudata, and Gymnophiona) and 13 families present in China to evaluate the versatility and specificity of these primers sets in amphibian eDNA metabarcoding studies. Three pairs of primers were highly effective, as they could successfully amplify all the major clades of Chinese amphibians in our study. A few non-amphibian taxa were also amplified by these primers, which implies that further optimization of amphibian-specific primers is still needed. The simultaneous use of three primer sets can completely cover all the species obtained by conventional survey methods and has even effectively distinguished quite a number of species (n = 20) in the Wenshan National Nature Reserve. No single primer set could individually detect all of the species from the studied region, indicating that multiple primers might be necessary for a comprehensive survey of Chinese amphibians. Besides, seasonal variations in amphibian species composition were also revealed by eDNA metabarcoding, which was consistent with traditional survey methods. These results indicate that eDNA metabarcoding has the potential to be a powerful tool for studying spatial and temporal community changes in amphibian species richness.

Keywords

amphibians / biodiversity monitoring / environmental DNA / genetic marker / metabarcoding

References

[1] Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP et al. (2018). Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, 134-147.

[2] AmphibiaChina (2023). The Database of Chinese Amphibians. Kunming Institute of Zoology (CAS), Yunnan. Available from URL: http://www.amphibiachina.org

[3] Bálint M, Nowak C, Márton O et al. (2018). Accuracy, limitations and cost efficiency of eDNA-based community survey in tropical frogs. Molecular Ecology Resources 18, 1415-1426.

[4] Barnes MA, Turner CR (2016). The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conservation Genetics 17, 1-17.

[5] Belle CC, Stoeckle BC, Geist J (2019). Taxonomic and geographical representation of freshwater environmental DNA research in aquatic conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29, 1996-2009.

[6] Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B (2014). Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114-2120.

[7] Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V et al. (2009). BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 421.

[8] Che J, Chen HM, Yang JX et al. (2012). Universal COI primers for DNA barcoding amphibians. Molecular Ecology Resources 12, 247-258.

[9] Collins RA, Bakker J, Wangensteen OS et al. (2019). Non-specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 1985-2001.

[10] Deagle BE, Jarman SN, Coissac E et al. (2014). DNA metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: Not a perfect match. Biology Letters 10, 20140562.

[11] Deiner K, Altermatt F (2014). Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS ONE 9, e88786.

[12] Edgar RC (2010). Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460-2461.

[13] Elbrecht V, Leese F (2015). Can DNA-based ecosystem assessments quantify species abundance? Testing primer bias and biomass-sequence relationships with an innovative metabarcoding protocol. PLoS ONE 10, e0130324.

[14] Evans NT, Olds BP, Renshaw MA et al. (2015). Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 16, 29-41.

[15] Evans NT, Lamberti GA (2018). Freshwater fisheries assessment using environmental DNA: A primer on the method, its potential, and shortcomings as a conservation tool. Fisheries Research 197, 60-66.

[16] Freeland JR (2017). The importance of molecular markers and primer design when characterizing biodiversity from environmental DNA. Genome 60, 358-374.

[17] Guayasamin JM, Krynak T, Krynak K et al. (2015). Phenotypic plasticity raises questions for taxonomically important traits: A remarkable new Andean rain frog (Pristimantis) with the ability to change skin texture. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173, 913-928.

[18] IUCN (2023). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. Available from URL: https://www.iucnredlist.org

[19] Katoh K, Standley DM (2013). MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7, improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 772-780.

[20] Klobucar SL, Rodgers TW, Budy P (2017). At the forefront: Evidence of the applicability of using environmental DNA to quantify the abundance of fish populations in natural lentic waters with additional sampling considerations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 74, 2030-2034.

[21] Lacoursière-Roussel A, Deiner K (2021). Environmental DNA is not the tool by itself. Journal of Fish Biology 98, 383-386.

[22] Li WH, Hou XL, Xu CX et al. (2021a). Validating eDNA measurements of the richness and abundance of anurans at a large scale. Journal of Animal Ecology 90, 1466-1479.

[23] Li WH, Song TJ, Hou XL et al. (2021b). Application of eDNA metabarcoding for detecting Anura on a tropical island. Diversity 13, 440.

[24] Lopes CM, Sasso T, Valentini A et al. (2017). eDNA metabarcoding: A promising method for anuran surveys in highly diverse tropical forests. Molecular Ecology Resources 17, 904-914.

[25] Luedtke JA, Chanson J, Neam K et al. (2023). Ongoing declines for the world's amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 622, 308-314.

[26] Magoč T, Salzberg SL (2011). FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957-2963.

[27] Maruyama A, Nakamura K, Yamanaka H et al. (2014). The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish. PLoS ONE 9, e114639.

[28] Padial JM, Miralles A, De la Riva I et al. (2010). The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology 7, 16.

[29] R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from URL: https://www.R-project.org/.

[30] Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN (2007). BOLD: The barcode of life data system. Molecular Ecology Notes 7, 355-364.

[31] Reeves LE, Gillett-Kaufman JL, Kawahara AY et al. (2018). Barcoding blood meals: New vertebrate-specific primer sets for assigning taxonomic identities to host DNA from mosquito blood meals. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 12, e0006767.

[32] Sakata MK, Kawata MU, Kurabayashi A et al. (2022). Development and evaluation of PCR primers for environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of amphibia. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6, 15-26.

[33] Sasso T, Lopes CM, Valentini A et al. (2017). Environmental DNA characterization of amphibian communities in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Potential application for conservation of a rich and threatened fauna. Biological Conservation 215, 225-232.

[34] Shu L, Ludwig A, Peng Z (2021). Environmental DNA metabarcoding primers for freshwater fish detection and quantification: In silico and in tanks. Ecology and Evolution 11, 8281-8294.

[35] Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M et al. (2012). Environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology 21, 1789-1793.

[36] Taberlet P, Bonin A, Zinger L et al. (2018). Environmental DNA: For Biodiversity Research and Monitoring. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[37] Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D et al. (2013). MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 2725-2729.

[38] Ushio M, Murakami H, Masuda R et al. (2018). Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-throughput sequencing. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2, e23297.

[39] Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C et al. (2016). Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 25, 929-942.

[40] Wei PF, Chen JM, Duan YB et al. (2023). More accurate, consistent, and reliable data for amphibian species are needed from China's nature reserves. Conservation Science and Practice 5, e12872.

[41] Weigand H, Beermann AJ, Čiampor F et al. (2019). DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. The Science of the Total Environment 678, 499-524.

[42] Yang YM, Tian K, He SJ (2008). Scientific Investigation in Wenshan National Nature Reserve of China. Science Press, Beijing.

[43] Zhang S, Zhao JD, Yao M (2020). A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11, 1609-1625.

[44] Zinger L, Bonin A, Alsos IG et al. (2019). DNA metabarcoding-Need for robust experimental designs to draw sound ecological conclusions. Molecular Ecology 28, 1857-1862.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Integrative Zoology published by International Society of Zoological Sciences, Institute of Zoology/Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.