Biases underlying species detection using fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphisms yielded from roots

Plant Methods

Simon M Landhäusser¹  Pak Chow¹  Justine Karst¹ 

[1] Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 442 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton T6G 2E3, AB, Canada

关键词: Community;    belowground diversity;    False-negatives;    Mixed template;    Bromus inermis Leyss.;    Populus tremuloides Michx.;    AFLP;    trnL-trnF intergenic spacer;    trnL intron;    trnT-trnL intergenic spacer;   

Others  :  1218676
DOI  :  10.1186/s13007-015-0079-1

 received in 2015-04-20, accepted in 2015-06-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Roots of different plant species are typically morphologically indistinguishable. Of the DNA-based techniques, fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphisms (FAFLPs) are considered reliable, high throughput, inexpensive methods to identify roots from mixed species samples. False-negatives, however, are not uncommon and their underlying causes are poorly understood. We investigated several sources of potential biases originating in DNA extraction and amplification. Specifically, we examined the effects of sample storage, tissue, and species on DNA yield and purity, and the effects of DNA concentration and fragment size on amplification of three non-coding chloroplast regions (trnT-trnL intergenic spacer, trnL intron, and trnL-trnF intergenic spacer).

Results

We found that sample condition, tissue and species all affected DNA yield. A single freeze–thaw reduces DNA yield, DNA yield is less for roots than shoots, and species vary in the amount of DNA yielded from extractions. The effects of template DNA concentration, species identity, and their interaction on amplicon yield differed across the three chloroplast regions tested. We found that the effect of species identity on amplicon production was generally more pronounced than that of DNA concentration. Though these factors influenced DNA yield, they likely do not have a pronounced effect on detection success of fragments and only underscore the restriction on the use of FAFLPs for measuring species presence rather than their abundance. However, for two of the regions tested—the trnT-trnL intergenic spacer and the trnL intron—size-based fragment competition occurred and the likelihood of detection was higher for smaller than larger fragments. This result reveals a methodological bias when using FAFLPs.

Conclusions

To avoid potential bias with the use of FAFLPs, we recommend users check for the disproportionate absence of species detected belowground versus aboveground as a function of fragment size, and explore other regions, aside from the trnT-trnL intergenic spacer and trnL intron, for amplification.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Karst et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure1.

Figure 4.

Figure3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Casper BB, Jackson RB. Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1997; 28:545-570.
• [2]Hooper DU, Bignell DE, Brown VK, Brussaard L, Dangerfield JM, Wall DH et al (2000) Interactions between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. Bioscience 50(12):1049–1061. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[1049:ibaabb]2.0.co;2
• [3]Kesanakurti PR, Fazekas AJ, Burgess KS, Percy DM, Newmaster SG, Graham SW et al.. Spatial patterns of plant diversity below-ground as revealed by DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol. 2011; 20(6):1289-1302.
• [4]Yoccoz NG, Brathen KA, Gielly L, Haile J, Edwards ME, Goslar T et al.. DNA from soil mirrors plant taxonomic and growth form diversity. Mol Ecol. 2012; 21(15):3647-3655.
• [5]Paertel M, Hiiesalu I, Oepik M, Wilson SD. Below-ground plant species richness: new insights from DNA-based methods. Funct Ecol. 2012; 26(4):775-782.
• [6]Frank DA, Pontes AW, Maine EM, Caruana J, Raina R, Raina S et al.. Grassland root communities: species distributions and how they are linked to aboveground abundance. Ecology. 2010; 91(11):3201-3209.
• [7]Rewald B, Meinen C, Trockenbrodt M, Ephrath JE, Rachmilevitch S. Root taxa identification in plant mixtures—current techniques and future challenges. Plant Soil. 2012; 359(1–2):165-182.
• [8]Randall MJ, Karst J, Pec GJ, Davis CS, Hall JC, Cahill JF. A molecular identification protocol for roots of boreal forest tree species. Appl Plant Sci. 2014.
• [9]Mueller UG, Wolfenbarger LL. AFLP genotyping and fingerprinting. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999; 14(10):389-394.
• [10]Taggart JM, Cahill JF, McNickle GG, Hall JC. Molecular identification of roots from a grassland community using size differences in fluorescently labelled PCR amplicons of three cpDNA regions. Mol Ecol Res. 2011; 11(1):185-195.
• [11]Mommer L, Dumbrell AJ, Wagemaker CAM, Ouborg NJ. Belowground DNA-based techniques: untangling the network of plant root interactions. Plant Soil. 2011; 348(1–2):115-121.
• [12]Hiiesalu I, Oepik M, Metsis M, Lilje L, Davison J, Vasar M et al.. Plant species richness belowground: higher richness and new patterns revealed by next-generation sequencing. Mol Ecol. 2012; 21(8):2004-2016.
• [13]Haling RE, Simpson RJ, McKay AC, Hartley D, Lambers H, Ophel-Keller K et al.. Direct measurement of roots in soil for single and mixed species using a quantitative DNA-based method. Plant Soil. 2011; 348(1–2):123-137.
• [14]Mommer L, Wagemaker CAM, De Kroon H, Ouborg NJ. Unravelling below-ground plant distributions: a real-time polymerase chain reaction method for quantifying species proportions in mixed root samples. Mol Ecol Res. 2008; 8(5):947-953.
• [15]Finkeldey R, Leinemann L, Gailing O. Molecular genetic tools to infer the origin of forest plants and wood. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010; 85(5):1251-1258.
• [16]Haling RE, Simpson RJ, Culvenor RA, Lambers H, Richardson AE. Field application of a DNA-based assay to the measurement of roots of perennial grasses. Plant Soil. 2012; 358(1–2):176-192.
• [17]Riley IT, Wiebkin S, Hartley D, McKay AC. Quantification of roots and seeds in soil with real-time PCR. Plant Soil. 2010; 331(1–2):151-163.
• [18]Bainard LD, Klironomos JN, Hart MM. Differential effect of sample preservation methods on plant and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal DNA. J Microbiol Methods. 2010; 82(2):124-130.
• [19]Sterling S, Ducharne A. Comprehensive data set of global land cover change for land surface model applications. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2008.
• [20]Fisk MC, Yanai RD, Fierer N. A molecular approach to quantify root community composition in a northern hardwood forest—testing effects of root species, relative abundance, and diameter. Can J For Res. 2010; 40(4):836-841.
• [21]Osborn AM, Moore ERB, Timmis KN. An evaluation of terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics. Environ Microbiol. 2000; 2(1):39-50.
• [22]Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, Vandelee T, Hornes M et al.. AFLP—a new technique for DNA-fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995; 23(21):4407-4414.
• [23]Suzuki MT, Giovannoni SJ. Bias caused by template annealing in the amplification of mixtures of 16S rRNA genes by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996; 62(2):625-630.
• [24]Benita Y, Oosting RS, Lok MC, Wise MJ, Humphery-Smith I. Regionalized GC content of template DNA as a predictor of PCR success. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003.
• [25]Hansen MC, Tolker-Nielsen T, Givskov M, Molin S. Biased 16S rDNA PCR amplification caused by interference from DNA flanking the template region. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1998; 26(2):141-149.
• [26]Pan W, Byrne-Steele M, Wang C, Lu S, Clemmons S, Zahorchak RJ et al.. DNA polymerase preference determines PCR priming efficiency. BMC Biotechnol. 2014.
• [27]Shaw J, Lickey EB, Beck JT, Farmer SB, Liu WS, Miller J et al.. The tortoise and the hare II: relative utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences for phylogenetic analysis. Am J Bot. 2005; 92(1):142-166.
• [28]Shaw J, Lickey EB, Schilling EE, Small RL. Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. Am J Bot. 2007; 94(3):275-288.
• [29]Healey A, Furtado A, Cooper T, Henry RJ. Protocol: a simple method for extracting next-generation sequencing quality genomic DNA from recalcitrant plant species. Plant Methods. 2014.
• [30]Fornwalt PJ, Kaufmann MR, Huckaby LS, Stoker JA, Stohlgren TJ. Non-native plant invasions in managed and protected ponderosa pine Douglas-fir forests of the Colorado Front Range. For Ecol Manage. 2003; 177(1–3):515-527.
• [31]Tyser RW, Worley CA. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (USA). Conserv Biol. 1992; 6(2):253-262.
• [32]Wein RW, Wein G, Bahret S, Cody WJ. Northward invading nonnative vascular plant species in and adjacent to Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. Can Field Nat. 1992; 106(2):216-224.
• [33]Sumners WH, Archibold OW. Exotic plant species in the southern boreal forest of Saskatchewan. For Ecol Manage. 2007; 251(3):156-163.
• [34]Taberlet P, Gielly L, Pautou G, Bouvet J. Universal primers for amplification of 3 noncoding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol Biol. 1991; 17(5):1105-1109.
• [35]Johnson D, Kershaw L, MacKinnon A, Pojar J. Plants of the western forest, boreal and aspen parkland. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton; 2009.