Advertisement

Ancient DNA pp 149-161 | Cite as

Targeted Amplification and Sequencing of Ancient Environmental and Sedimentary DNA

  • Ruth V. Nichols
  • Emily Curd
  • Peter D. Heintzman
  • Beth ShapiroEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1963)

Abstract

All organisms release their DNA into the environment through processes such as excretion and the senescence of tissues and limbs. This DNA, often referred to as environmental DNA (eDNA) or sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA), can be recovered from both present-day and ancient soils, fecal samples, bodies of water and lake cores, and even air. While eDNA is a potentially useful record of past and present biodiversity, several challenges complicate data generation and interpretation of results. Most importantly, eDNA samples tend to be highly taxonomically mixed, and the target organism or group of organisms may be present at very low abundance within this mixture. To overcome this challenge, enrichment approaches are often used to target specific taxa of interest. Here, we describe a protocol to amplify metabarcodes or short, variable loci that identify lineages within broad taxonomic groups (e.g., plants, mammals), using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with established generic “barcode” primers. We also provide a catalog of animal and plant barcode primers that, because they target relatively short fragments of DNA, are potentially suitable for use with degraded DNA.

Key words

Ancient DNA Universal primers Environmental DNA sedaDNA Metabarcoding Amplicon sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

P.D.H. acknowledges support from the Research Council of Norway (Grant 250963: “ECOGEN”).

References

  1. 1.
    Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM (2011) “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conserv Lett 4:150–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00158.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taberlet P, Bouvet J (1991) A single plucked feather as a source of DNA for bird genetic studies. Auk 108:959–960Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soininen EM, Valentini A, Coissac E et al (2009) Analysing diet of small herbivores: the efficiency of DNA barcoding coupled with high-throughput pyrosequencing for deciphering the composition of complex plant mixtures. Front Zool 6:16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-6-16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sønstebø JH, Gielly L, Brysting AK et al (2010) Using next-generation sequencing for molecular reconstruction of past Arctic vegetation and climate. Mol Ecol Resour 10:1009–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02855.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wheat RE, Allen JM, Miller SDL et al (2016) Environmental DNA from residual saliva for efficient noninvasive genetic monitoring of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). PLoS One 11:e0165259.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nichols RV, Königsson H, Danell K, Spong G (2012) Browsed twig environmental DNA: diagnostic PCR to identify ungulate species. Mol Ecol Resour 12:983–989.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03172.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MTP et al (2014) Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 29:358–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedersen MW, Ruter A, Schweger C et al (2016) Postglacial viability and colonization in North America’s ice-free corridor. Nature 537:45–49.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham RW, Belmecheri S, Choy K et al (2016) Timing and causes of mid-Holocene mammoth extinction on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:9310–9314.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604903113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slon V, Hopfe C, Weiß CL et al (2017) Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from Pleistocene sediments. Science 356:605–608.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coissac E, Hollingsworth PM, Lavergne S, Taberlet P (2016) From barcodes to genomes: extending the concept of DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol 25:1423–1428.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pompanon F et al (2007) Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res 35:e14.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epp LS, Boessenkool S, Bellemain EP et al (2012) New environmental metabarcodes for analysing soil DNA: potential for studying past and present ecosystems. Mol Ecol 21:1821–1833.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05537.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bienert F, De Danieli S, Miquel C et al (2012) Tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA. Mol Ecol 21:2017–2030.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05407.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willerslev E, Cappellini E, Boomsma W et al (2007) Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores reveal a forested southern Greenland. Science 317:111–114.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141758CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riaz T, Shehzad W, Viari A et al (2011) ecoPrimers: inference of new DNA barcode markers from whole genome sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 39:e145.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr732CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C et al (2016) Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 25:929–942.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dalén L, Lagerholm VK, Nylander JAA et al (2017) Identifying bird remains using ancient DNA barcoding. Genes (Basel).  https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8060169
  19. 19.
    Taylor PG (1996) Reproducibility of ancient DNA sequences from extinct Pleistocene fauna. Mol Biol Evol 13(1):283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boessenkool S, Epp LS, Haile J et al (2012) Blocking human contaminant DNA during PCR allows amplification of rare mammal species from sedimentary ancient DNA. Mol Ecol 21:1806–1815.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05306.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giguet-Covex C, Pansu J, Arnaud F et al (2014) Long livestock farming history and human landscape shaping revealed by lake sediment DNA. Nat Commun 5:3211.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tillmar AO, Dell’Amico B, Welander J, Holmlund G (2013) A universal method for species identification of mammals utilizing next generation sequencing for the analysis of DNA mixtures. PLoS One 8:e83761.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083761CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nichols RV, Vollmers C, Newsom LA et al (2018) Minimizing polymerase biases in metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Res 18:927–939.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12895
  24. 24.
    Seersholm FV, Pedersen MW, Søe MJ et al (2016) DNA evidence of bowhead whale exploitation by Greenlandic Paleo-Inuit 4,000 years ago. Nat Commun 7:13389.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13389CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schnell IB, Bohmann K, Gilbert MTP (2015) Tag jumps illuminated—reducing sequence-to-sample misidentifications in metabarcoding studies. Mol Ecol Resour 15:1289–1303.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rohland N, Reich D (2012) Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res 22:939–946.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.128124.111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth V. Nichols
    • 1
  • Emily Curd
    • 2
  • Peter D. Heintzman
    • 3
  • Beth Shapiro
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Tromsø University MuseumUiT—The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations