Department of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
ID-Gene ecodiagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mol Ecol. 2021 Jul;30(13):2959-2968. doi: 10.1111/mec.15646. Epub 2020 Nov 14.
Recently, several studies demonstrated the usefulness of diatom eDNA metabarcoding as an alternative to assess the ecological quality of rivers and streams. However, the choice of the taxonomic marker as well as the methodology for data analysis differ between these studies, hampering the comparison of their results and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare two taxonomic markers commonly used in diatom metabarcoding and three distinct analytical approaches to infer a molecular diatom index. We used the values of classical morphological diatom index as a benchmark for this comparison. We amplified and sequenced both a fragment of the rbcL gene and the V4 region of the 18S rRNA gene for 112 epilithic samples from Swiss and French rivers. We inferred index values using three analytical approaches: by computing it directly from taxonomically assigned sequences, by calibrating de novo the ecovalues of all metabarcodes, and by using a supervised machine learning algorithm to train predictive models. In general, the values of index obtained using the two "taxonomy-free" approaches, encompassing molecular assignment and machine learning, were closer correlated to the values of the morphological index than the values based on taxonomically assigned sequences. The correlations of the three analytical approaches were higher in the case of rbcL compared to the 18S marker, highlighting the importance of the reference database which is more complete for the rbcL marker. Our study confirms the effectiveness of diatom metabarcoding as an operational tool for rivers ecological quality assessment and shows that the analytical approaches by-passing the taxonomic assignments are particularly efficient when reference databases are incomplete.
最近,有几项研究表明,硅藻 DNA metabarcoding 作为评估河流和溪流生态质量的替代方法非常有用。然而,这些研究之间的分类标记选择以及数据分析方法存在差异,这阻碍了它们的结果和有效性的比较。本研究旨在比较两种常用于硅藻 metabarcoding 的分类标记物和三种不同的分析方法,以推断分子硅藻指数。我们使用经典形态硅藻指数的值作为比较的基准。我们从瑞士和法国的河流中采集了 112 个附生样本,分别扩增和测序了 rbcL 基因片段和 18S rRNA 基因的 V4 区。我们使用三种分析方法推断指数值:直接根据分类分配的序列计算,通过校准所有 metabarcodes 的生态值,以及使用监督机器学习算法来训练预测模型。一般来说,使用两种“无分类”方法(包括分子分配和机器学习)推断出的指数值与形态指数值的相关性比基于分类分配序列的指数值更高。在 rbcL 标记物的情况下,三种分析方法的相关性高于 18S 标记物,这突出了参考数据库的重要性,rbcL 标记物的参考数据库更加完整。本研究证实了硅藻 metabarcoding 作为河流生态质量评估的有效工具的有效性,并表明在参考数据库不完整的情况下,绕过分类分配的分析方法特别有效。