Research Article
Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 3: e34002
https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.3.34002 (12 Jun 2019)
https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.3.34002 (12 Jun 2019)
Other versions:
- ContentsContents
- Article InfoArticle Info
- CiteCite
- MetricsMetrics
- CommentComment
- RelatedRelated
- FigsFigs
- TabsTabs
- TaxaTaxa
- RefsRefs
- CitedCited
-
Article title
-
Abstract
-
Key Words
-
Introduction
-
Material and methods
-
Sampling sites
-
Sample analysis
-
Morphological analysis
-
DNA extraction and PCR amplification
-
Preparation and High-Throughput sequencing of DNA
-
Sequence data processing
-
Ecological status class assessment
-
Statistical analysis
-
Software
-
-
Results
-
Comparison of methods for environmental assessment – Ecological status class
-
Comparison of methods for environmental assessment – Polluosensibilité spécifique index (IPS)
-
Deviations link to Environmental variables
-
General deviations in species lists
-
Shannon diversity and taxa missing from reference databases
-
Causes for differences in the species list between morphological and molecular assessments
-
Main species causing differences in IPS
-
Comparative use of the rbcL and 18S markers
-
-
Discussion
-
Different ecological status resulted from the morphological and the molecular assessments
-
The reference database incompleteness leads both to non-identification and misidentification of species
-
The detection of species is also affected by primer bias and the choice of the pipeline
-
The metabarcoding detect additional species
-
Not only the presence of species had an impact on the IPS scores, species abundances were also affecting the index calculations
-
Different markers give different ecological status assessment
-
-
Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
References
Subscribe to email alerts for current Article's categories