Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28533985›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Metabarcoding monitoring analysis: the pros and cons of using co-extracted environmental DNA and RNA data to assess offshore oil production impacts on benthic communities.

Olivier Laroche, Susanna A Wood, Louis A Tremblay, Gavin Lear, Joanne I Ellis, Xavier Pochon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Elevated atmospheric COBMC microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Elevated Atmospheric COMicrobial ecology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olivier LarocheSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Susanna A WoodEnvironmental Technologies, Coastal and Freshwater Group, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.
Louis A TremblaySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gavin LearSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Joanne I EllisRed Sea Research Centre, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Xavier PochonEnvironmental Technologies, Coastal and Freshwater Group, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequencing environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly being used as an alternative to traditional morphological-based identification to characterize biological assemblages and monitor anthropogenic impacts in marine environments. Most studies only assess eDNA which, compared to eRNA, can persist longer in the environment after cell death. Therefore, eRNA may provide a more immediate census of the environment due to its relatively weaker stability, leading some researchers to advocate for the use of eRNA as an additional, or perhaps superior proxy for portraying ecological changes. A variety of pre-treatment techniques for screening eDNA and eRNA derived operational taxonomic units (OTUs) have been employed prior to statistical analyses, including removing singleton taxa (i.e., OTUs found only once) and discarding those not present in both eDNA and eRNA datasets. In this study, we used bacterial (16S ribosomal RNA gene) and eukaryotic (18S ribosomal RNA gene) eDNA- and eRNA-derived data from benthic communities collected at increasing distances along a transect from an oil production platform (Taranaki, New Zealand). Macro-infauna (visual classification of benthic invertebrates) and physico-chemical data were analyzed in parallel. We tested the effect of removing singleton taxa, and removing taxa not present in the eDNA and eRNA libraries from the same environmental sample (trimmed by shared OTUs), by comparing the impact of the oil production platform on alpha- and beta-diversity of the eDNA/eRNA-based biological assemblages, and by correlating these to the morphologically identified macro-faunal communities and the physico-chemical data. When trimmed by singletons, presence/absence information from eRNA data represented the best proxy to detect changes on species diversity for both bacteria and eukaryotes. However, assessment of quantitative beta-diversity from read abundance information of bacteria eRNA did not, contrary to eDNA, reveal any impact from the oil production activity. Overall, the data appeared more robust when trimmed by shared OTUs, showing a greater effect of the platform on alpha- and beta-diversity. Trimming by shared OTUs likely removes taxa derived from legacy DNA and technical artefacts introduced through reverse transcriptase, polymerase-chain-reaction and sequencing. Findings from our scoping study suggest that metabarcoding-based biomonitoring surveys should, if funds, time and expertise allow, be assessed using both eDNA and eRNA products.

Indexed as

Bacteria (16S)Benthic ecologyBiomonitoringeDNAeRNAEukaryotes (18S)High-throughput sequencingMethod testingOil and gas activities

Identifiers

PMID28533985
PMCPMC5437860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.