Front Microbiol. 2017 Sep 26;8:1848. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01848. eCollection 2017.

Sample Preservation, DNA or RNA Extraction and Data Analysis for High-Throughput Phytoplankton Community Sequencing.

Frontiers in microbiology

Anita Mäki, Pauliina Salmi, Anu Mikkonen, Anke Kremp, Marja Tiirola

PMID: 29018424 PMCID: PMC5622927 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01848

Abstract

Phytoplankton is the basis for aquatic food webs and mirrors the water quality. Conventionally, phytoplankton analysis has been done using time consuming and partly subjective microscopic observations, but next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies provide promising potential for rapid automated examination of environmental samples. Because many phytoplankton species have tough cell walls, methods for cell lysis and DNA or RNA isolation need to be efficient to allow unbiased nucleic acid retrieval. Here, we analyzed how two phytoplankton preservation methods, three commercial DNA extraction kits and their improvements, three RNA extraction methods, and two data analysis procedures affected the results of the NGS analysis. A mock community was pooled from phytoplankton species with variation in nucleus size and cell wall hardness. Although the study showed potential for studying Lugol-preserved sample collections, it demonstrated critical challenges in the DNA-based phytoplankton analysis in overall. The 18S rRNA gene sequencing output was highly affected by the variation in the rRNA gene copy numbers per cell, while sample preservation and nucleic acid extraction methods formed another source of variation. At the top, sequence-specific variation in the data quality introduced unexpected bioinformatics bias when the sliding-window method was used for the quality trimming of the Ion Torrent data. While DNA-based analyses did not correlate with biomasses or cell numbers of the mock community, rRNA-based analyses were less affected by different RNA extraction procedures and had better match with the biomasses, dry weight and carbon contents, and are therefore recommended for quantitative phytoplankton analyses.

Keywords: Lugol; cell lysis; next generation sequencing; operational taxonomic units; phytoplankton

References

1. Genome. 2003 Feb;46(1):48-50 - PubMed
2. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 07;9(2):e87624 - PubMed
3. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2017 Nov;64(6):885-896 - PubMed
4. PLoS One. 2015 May 28;10(5):e0127721 - PubMed
5. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016 Sep 16;82(19):5878-91 - PubMed
6. Biotechniques. 2016 Feb 01;60(2):88-90 - PubMed
7. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Jul;80(14):4363-73 - PubMed
8. Nat Rev Genet. 2014 Jan;15(1):56-62 - PubMed
9. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 28;10(7):e0133060 - PubMed
10. Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Aug;18(8):473-484 - PubMed
11. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Feb 25;17 :103 - PubMed
12. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53516 - PubMed
13. Front Genet. 2014 Jan 31;5:13 - PubMed
14. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 Nov;15(6):1435-45 - PubMed
15. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2001 Jul;36(2-3):139-151 - PubMed
16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Dec;74(12):5463-7 - PubMed
17. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2015;7:299-324 - PubMed
18. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 22;9(4):e95567 - PubMed
19. Exp Cell Res. 2014 Mar 10;322(1):12-20 - PubMed
20. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Jun;78(11):3958-65 - PubMed
21. Water Res. 2012 Oct 15;46(16):5355-64 - PubMed
22. Science. 2015 May 22;348(6237):1261605 - PubMed
23. Sci Data. 2015 May 26;2:150023 - PubMed
24. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 03;9(3):e90053 - PubMed
25. Biotechniques. 2000 Aug;29(2):252-4, 256 - PubMed
26. ISME J. 2009 Dec;3(12):1365-73 - PubMed
27. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Dec;74(23):7174-82 - PubMed
28. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41 - PubMed
29. Protist. 2009 May;160(2):285-300 - PubMed
30. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jul;67(7):2942-51 - PubMed
31. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 27;4(7):e6372 - PubMed
32. Nat Microbiol. 2016 Dec 19;2:16242 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article