Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators

Microbial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative technique...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Molecular ecology resources 2021-05, Vol.21 (4), p.1200-1215
Hauptverfasser: Pin, Lorenzo, Eiler, Alexander, Fazi, Stefano, Friberg, Nikolai
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1215
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1200
container_title Molecular ecology resources
container_volume 21
creator Pin, Lorenzo
Eiler, Alexander
Fazi, Stefano
Friberg, Nikolai
description Microbial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative techniques such as catalysed reported deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to analyse prokaryotic communities of epilithic biofilms in river ecosystems. We intended to investigate the efficacy of both techniques in detecting changes in microbial community structure associated with environmental drivers. We report a significant correlation between the prokaryotic community composition and pH in rivers from two different geographical areas in Norway. Both CARD‐FISH and metabarcoding data were following the pattern of the environmental variables, but the main feature distinguishing the community composition was the regional difference itself. Beta‐dispersion analyses on both CARD‐FISH abundance and metabarcoding data revealed higher accuracy of metabarcoding to differentiate regions and river systems. The CARD‐FISH results showed high variability, even for samples within the same river, probably due to some unmeasured microscale ecological variability which we could not resolve. We also present a statistical method, which uses variation coefficient and overall prevalence of taxonomic groups, to detect possible biological indicators among prokaryotes using metabarcoding data. The development of new prokaryotic bioindicators would benefit from both techniques used in this study, but metabarcoding seems to be faster and more reliable than CARD‐FISH for large scale bio‐assessment.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1755-0998.13341
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_crist</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_cristin_nora_10852_86699</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2511165590</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4361-85b2ce637f686524fbbc0ba7cc2057a83dc7a6b15ecabe08105fb547b1837ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtvFSEYQInR2Fpdu1MS17eFmWEe7kxbH0nVzV24I8B8eL-GgRGYNtcf5W-U8bZ3KxseOZwQDiGvOTvnZVzwTogNG4b-nNd1w5-Q0-PJ0-O6_3FCXqR0y1jLhq55Tk7qWlRD03Wn5M_2PtARrYUIPlM1zzEos4NEg6UTmhg0KkdNmKbFY97TlONi8hKBmp2KymSI-FtlDJ6ipxHvyt4DhRkd5h0aqjFYdFOiix8h0mlxGWcHqwhSCjEVuR9xNaT39AruwIUZ_U86BQdmcSoW8YhG5cK-JM-scglePcxnZPvxenv5eXPz_dOXyw83G9PULd_0QlcG2rqzbd-KqrFaG6ZVZ0zFRKf6ejSdajUXYJQG1nMmrBZNp3lf7tj6jLw9aE3ElNFLH6KSnPWikn3bDkMh3h2I8l-_FkhZ3oYl-vImWYlSphViYIW6ePSElCJYOUecVNwXl1wDyjWRXHPJfwHLjTcP3kVPMB75x2IFEAfgHh3s_-eTX6-_HcR_AWmiqmk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2511165590</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators</title><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Pin, Lorenzo ; Eiler, Alexander ; Fazi, Stefano ; Friberg, Nikolai</creator><creatorcontrib>Pin, Lorenzo ; Eiler, Alexander ; Fazi, Stefano ; Friberg, Nikolai</creatorcontrib><description>Microbial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative techniques such as catalysed reported deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to analyse prokaryotic communities of epilithic biofilms in river ecosystems. We intended to investigate the efficacy of both techniques in detecting changes in microbial community structure associated with environmental drivers. We report a significant correlation between the prokaryotic community composition and pH in rivers from two different geographical areas in Norway. Both CARD‐FISH and metabarcoding data were following the pattern of the environmental variables, but the main feature distinguishing the community composition was the regional difference itself. Beta‐dispersion analyses on both CARD‐FISH abundance and metabarcoding data revealed higher accuracy of metabarcoding to differentiate regions and river systems. The CARD‐FISH results showed high variability, even for samples within the same river, probably due to some unmeasured microscale ecological variability which we could not resolve. We also present a statistical method, which uses variation coefficient and overall prevalence of taxonomic groups, to detect possible biological indicators among prokaryotes using metabarcoding data. The development of new prokaryotic bioindicators would benefit from both techniques used in this study, but metabarcoding seems to be faster and more reliable than CARD‐FISH for large scale bio‐assessment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-098X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-0998</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13341</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33529477</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aquatic ecosystems ; biofilm ; Biofilms ; bioindicator ; Bioindicators ; Biomonitoring ; CARD‐FISH ; Coefficient of variation ; Community composition ; Community structure ; Composition ; Ecosystems ; Environmental changes ; Fluorescence ; Fluorescence in situ hybridization ; Indicator species ; Microbial activity ; Microbiomes ; Microorganisms ; Prokaryotes ; river ; River ecology ; River networks ; River systems ; Rivers ; sequencing ; Statistical methods ; Structural analysis ; Variability</subject><ispartof>Molecular ecology resources, 2021-05, Vol.21 (4), p.1200-1215</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Molecular Ecology Resources published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4361-85b2ce637f686524fbbc0ba7cc2057a83dc7a6b15ecabe08105fb547b1837ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4361-85b2ce637f686524fbbc0ba7cc2057a83dc7a6b15ecabe08105fb547b1837ff3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0964-2424</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1755-0998.13341$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1755-0998.13341$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,26567,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33529477$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pin, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eiler, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fazi, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friberg, Nikolai</creatorcontrib><title>Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators</title><title>Molecular ecology resources</title><addtitle>Mol Ecol Resour</addtitle><description>Microbial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative techniques such as catalysed reported deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to analyse prokaryotic communities of epilithic biofilms in river ecosystems. We intended to investigate the efficacy of both techniques in detecting changes in microbial community structure associated with environmental drivers. We report a significant correlation between the prokaryotic community composition and pH in rivers from two different geographical areas in Norway. Both CARD‐FISH and metabarcoding data were following the pattern of the environmental variables, but the main feature distinguishing the community composition was the regional difference itself. Beta‐dispersion analyses on both CARD‐FISH abundance and metabarcoding data revealed higher accuracy of metabarcoding to differentiate regions and river systems. The CARD‐FISH results showed high variability, even for samples within the same river, probably due to some unmeasured microscale ecological variability which we could not resolve. We also present a statistical method, which uses variation coefficient and overall prevalence of taxonomic groups, to detect possible biological indicators among prokaryotes using metabarcoding data. The development of new prokaryotic bioindicators would benefit from both techniques used in this study, but metabarcoding seems to be faster and more reliable than CARD‐FISH for large scale bio‐assessment.</description><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>biofilm</subject><subject>Biofilms</subject><subject>bioindicator</subject><subject>Bioindicators</subject><subject>Biomonitoring</subject><subject>CARD‐FISH</subject><subject>Coefficient of variation</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Community structure</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental changes</subject><subject>Fluorescence</subject><subject>Fluorescence in situ hybridization</subject><subject>Indicator species</subject><subject>Microbial activity</subject><subject>Microbiomes</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Prokaryotes</subject><subject>river</subject><subject>River ecology</subject><subject>River networks</subject><subject>River systems</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>sequencing</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Structural analysis</subject><subject>Variability</subject><issn>1755-098X</issn><issn>1755-0998</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtvFSEYQInR2Fpdu1MS17eFmWEe7kxbH0nVzV24I8B8eL-GgRGYNtcf5W-U8bZ3KxseOZwQDiGvOTvnZVzwTogNG4b-nNd1w5-Q0-PJ0-O6_3FCXqR0y1jLhq55Tk7qWlRD03Wn5M_2PtARrYUIPlM1zzEos4NEg6UTmhg0KkdNmKbFY97TlONi8hKBmp2KymSI-FtlDJ6ipxHvyt4DhRkd5h0aqjFYdFOiix8h0mlxGWcHqwhSCjEVuR9xNaT39AruwIUZ_U86BQdmcSoW8YhG5cK-JM-scglePcxnZPvxenv5eXPz_dOXyw83G9PULd_0QlcG2rqzbd-KqrFaG6ZVZ0zFRKf6ejSdajUXYJQG1nMmrBZNp3lf7tj6jLw9aE3ElNFLH6KSnPWikn3bDkMh3h2I8l-_FkhZ3oYl-vImWYlSphViYIW6ePSElCJYOUecVNwXl1wDyjWRXHPJfwHLjTcP3kVPMB75x2IFEAfgHh3s_-eTX6-_HcR_AWmiqmk</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Pin, Lorenzo</creator><creator>Eiler, Alexander</creator><creator>Fazi, Stefano</creator><creator>Friberg, Nikolai</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>3HK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0964-2424</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators</title><author>Pin, Lorenzo ; Eiler, Alexander ; Fazi, Stefano ; Friberg, Nikolai</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4361-85b2ce637f686524fbbc0ba7cc2057a83dc7a6b15ecabe08105fb547b1837ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>biofilm</topic><topic>Biofilms</topic><topic>bioindicator</topic><topic>Bioindicators</topic><topic>Biomonitoring</topic><topic>CARD‐FISH</topic><topic>Coefficient of variation</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Community structure</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental changes</topic><topic>Fluorescence</topic><topic>Fluorescence in situ hybridization</topic><topic>Indicator species</topic><topic>Microbial activity</topic><topic>Microbiomes</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Prokaryotes</topic><topic>river</topic><topic>River ecology</topic><topic>River networks</topic><topic>River systems</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>sequencing</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Structural analysis</topic><topic>Variability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pin, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eiler, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fazi, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friberg, Nikolai</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection><jtitle>Molecular ecology resources</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pin, Lorenzo</au><au>Eiler, Alexander</au><au>Fazi, Stefano</au><au>Friberg, Nikolai</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators</atitle><jtitle>Molecular ecology resources</jtitle><addtitle>Mol Ecol Resour</addtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1200</spage><epage>1215</epage><pages>1200-1215</pages><issn>1755-098X</issn><eissn>1755-0998</eissn><abstract>Microbial communities are major players in the biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning of river networks. Despite their importance in the ecosystem, biomonitoring tools relying on prokaryotes are still lacking. Only a few studies have employed both metabarcoding and quantitative techniques such as catalysed reported deposition fluorescence in situ hybridization (CARD‐FISH) to analyse prokaryotic communities of epilithic biofilms in river ecosystems. We intended to investigate the efficacy of both techniques in detecting changes in microbial community structure associated with environmental drivers. We report a significant correlation between the prokaryotic community composition and pH in rivers from two different geographical areas in Norway. Both CARD‐FISH and metabarcoding data were following the pattern of the environmental variables, but the main feature distinguishing the community composition was the regional difference itself. Beta‐dispersion analyses on both CARD‐FISH abundance and metabarcoding data revealed higher accuracy of metabarcoding to differentiate regions and river systems. The CARD‐FISH results showed high variability, even for samples within the same river, probably due to some unmeasured microscale ecological variability which we could not resolve. We also present a statistical method, which uses variation coefficient and overall prevalence of taxonomic groups, to detect possible biological indicators among prokaryotes using metabarcoding data. The development of new prokaryotic bioindicators would benefit from both techniques used in this study, but metabarcoding seems to be faster and more reliable than CARD‐FISH for large scale bio‐assessment.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33529477</pmid><doi>10.1111/1755-0998.13341</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0964-2424</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1755-098X
ispartof Molecular ecology resources, 2021-05, Vol.21 (4), p.1200-1215
issn 1755-098X
1755-0998
language eng
recordid cdi_cristin_nora_10852_86699
source NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Aquatic ecosystems
biofilm
Biofilms
bioindicator
Bioindicators
Biomonitoring
CARD‐FISH
Coefficient of variation
Community composition
Community structure
Composition
Ecosystems
Environmental changes
Fluorescence
Fluorescence in situ hybridization
Indicator species
Microbial activity
Microbiomes
Microorganisms
Prokaryotes
river
River ecology
River networks
River systems
Rivers
sequencing
Statistical methods
Structural analysis
Variability
title Two different approaches of microbial community structure characterization in riverine epilithic biofilms under multiple stressors conditions: Developing molecular indicators
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T14%3A02%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_crist&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Two%20different%20approaches%20of%20microbial%20community%20structure%20characterization%20in%20riverine%20epilithic%20biofilms%20under%20multiple%20stressors%20conditions:%20Developing%20molecular%20indicators&rft.jtitle=Molecular%20ecology%20resources&rft.au=Pin,%20Lorenzo&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1200&rft.epage=1215&rft.pages=1200-1215&rft.issn=1755-098X&rft.eissn=1755-0998&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1755-0998.13341&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_crist%3E2511165590%3C/proquest_crist%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2511165590&rft_id=info:pmid/33529477&rfr_iscdi=true