2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.funeco.2015.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Polymerase matters: non-proofreading enzymes inflate fungal community richness estimates by up to 15 %

Abstract: a b s t r a c tRare taxa overwhelm metabarcoding data generated using next-generation sequencing (NGS). Low frequency Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) may be artifacts generated by PCR-amplification errors resulting from polymerase mispairing. We analyzed two Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 (ITS2) MiSeq libraries generated with proofreading (ThermoScientific Phusion Ò ) and non-proofreading (ThermoScientific Phire Ò ) polymerases from the same MiSeq reaction, the same samples, using the same DNA tags, and with… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
65
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(22 reference statements)
2
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our PacBio and Illumina substitution profiles match closely to the Taq polymerase error profile (Potapov & Ong, ), raising concern that the relatively sensitive proofreading enzyme may have been inactive during the amplification of our fungal and soil DNA samples. The choice and testing of polymerase and optimal amplification conditions are critical for the minimization of random errors in HTS data (Oliver et al ., ; D'Amore et al ., ; Gohl et al ., ; Potapov & Ong, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our PacBio and Illumina substitution profiles match closely to the Taq polymerase error profile (Potapov & Ong, ), raising concern that the relatively sensitive proofreading enzyme may have been inactive during the amplification of our fungal and soil DNA samples. The choice and testing of polymerase and optimal amplification conditions are critical for the minimization of random errors in HTS data (Oliver et al ., ; D'Amore et al ., ; Gohl et al ., ; Potapov & Ong, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sequences classified to Chloroplast, Mitochondria, unknown, Archaea, and Eukaryota were removed from the analyses. Rare OTUs that were represented by 10 or fewer sequences in the whole data were removed as suggested by Oliver, Brown, Callaham, and Jumpponen (2015). For each OTU the number of sequences found in negative controls were subtracted from each sample.…”
Section: Sequence Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Huse et al 2010;Kunin et al 2010;Tedersoo et al 2010;Brown et al 2015a,b). These post-sequencing technical investigations are crucial to environmental sequencing efforts, but equally important are presequencing considerations such as proper experimental design (Lindahl et al 2013) and amplicon generation methods (see Bazzicalupo et al 2013;Blaalid et al 2013;Oliver et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although methodological obstacles in community sequencing are numerous including polymerase choice (Oliver et al . ), computational limitations (Schloss et al . ) and algorithm choice (Schmidt et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation