2019
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202844
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting provenance of forensic soil samples: Linking soil to ecological habitats by metabarcoding and supervised classification

Abstract: Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly applied in ecological studies, including studies with the primary purpose of criminal investigation, in which eDNA from soil can be used to pair samples or reveal sample provenance. We collected soil eDNA samples as part of a large national biodiversity research project across 130 sites in Denmark. We investigated the potential for soil eDNA metabarcoding in predicting provenance in terms of environmental conditions, habitat type and geographic regions. We used linear r… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The preparation of the fungal (ITS2) and eukaryote (18S) eDNA datasets have been published in Fløjgaard et al () and Frøslev et al () respectively. The arthropod DNA dataset was produced by extracting DNA from the ethanol from the bulk insect Malaise traps and metabarcoding with the arthropod specific COI primers ZBJ‐ArtF1c and ZBJ‐ArtR2c (Zeale et al ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The preparation of the fungal (ITS2) and eukaryote (18S) eDNA datasets have been published in Fløjgaard et al () and Frøslev et al () respectively. The arthropod DNA dataset was produced by extracting DNA from the ethanol from the bulk insect Malaise traps and metabarcoding with the arthropod specific COI primers ZBJ‐ArtF1c and ZBJ‐ArtR2c (Zeale et al ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1.8) (Callahan et al ) to identify exact amplicon sequence variants (ESVs, see Callahan et al ) including removal of chimeras and post‐clustering curation using LULU (Frøslev et al ). Taxonomic assignment was done with a custom script (as in Fløjgaard et al ). OTUs not assigned to Arthropoda were discarded before further analyses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The preparation of the fungal and eukaryote eDNA datasets have been published in Frøslev, et al (44) and Fløjgaard, et al (45) respectively. The insect DNA dataset was produced by extracting DNA from the ethanol from the bulk insect Malaise traps and metabarcoding with an insect specific 16S primer.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dried pellet was extracted with the Qiagen DNeasy blood and tissue kit (Qiagen, Germany) with minor modifications. The extracted DNA was normalized, amplified, sequenced and analyzed according to the overall procedures described for 16S insects in Fløjgaard, et al (45), but including curation of OTUs with LULU (26) and taxonomic assignment with a custom script, and exclusion of non-arthropod sequences. Data from the two different collecting events were handled separately and the sequences were then combined for each site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This result indicates that the number of unique sequences output from DADA2 cannot be used to infer experimental success, with respect to sequence quality or target specificity. In the limited previous DNA metabarcoding studies that targeted ITS2 for plant characterization from soil, larger numbers of target sequences per sample were recovered (e.g.,~10,000 sequences/sample) [4,23]. Two main differences in methodology can explain the increased recovery in those studies: 1) soil was stored at -80˚C prior to subsampling to preserve the biological material [4], and 2) either multiple DNA extractions were completed per sample (with the resulting DNA pooled to increase input for PCR; [4]), or a single extraction was completed using a large quantity of soil as input (4 gm; [23]).…”
Section: Barcode Sequence and Taxonomic Group Recoverymentioning
confidence: 99%