Back to all available

Rapid assessment of phytoplankton assemblages using Next Generation Sequencing and Barcode of Life Data System: a widely applicable HAB-ID toolkit for detecting and monitoring biodiversity loss and harmful algal blooms

biodiversity
molecular-biology
taxonomy
freshwater-biology

Abstract

Harmful algal blooms have important implications for the health, functioning, and services of aquatic ecosystems. Our ability to detect and monitor these events is often challenged by the lack of rapid and cost-effective methods to identify bloom-forming organisms and their potential for toxin production. Here, we developed and applied a combination of DNA barcoding and Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) for the rapid assessment of phytoplankton community composition with a focus on two important indicators of ecosystem health: toxigenic bloom-forming cyanobacteria and impaired planktonic biodiversity. To develop this molecular toolset for identification of cyanobacterial and algal species present in HABs (Harmful Algal Blooms), hereafter called HAB-ID, we achieved three goals: creating a validated reference database, optimizing molecular protocols, and developing original bioinformatics pipeline tailored to uncertainty of algal taxonomy. The BOLD (Barcode of Life Data System) 16S reference database from cultures of 211 cyanobacterial and algal strains representing 101 species with particular focus on bloom and toxin producing taxa was constructed with Sanger sequencing and further refined using Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing (SMRT-sequencing). Using the new reference database of 16S rDNA sequences and constructed mock communities of mixed strains for protocol validation, we developed new NGS primer sets which can recover 16S from both cyanobacteria and eukaryotic algal chloroplasts. We also developed DNA extraction protocols for cultured algal strains and environmental samples, which match commercial kit performance and offer a cost-efficient solution for large scale ecological assessments of harmful blooms while giving benefits of reproducibility and increased accessibility. Our innovative bioinformatics pipeline was designed to handle low taxonomic resolution for problematic genera of cyanobacteria such as the Anabaena-Aphanizomenon-Dolichospermum complex, two clusters of Anabaena (I and II), Planktothrix and Microcystis. This newly developed HAB-ID toolset was further validated by applying it to assess cyanobacterial and algal composition in field samples from waterbodies with recurrent HABs events.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].