Assessment of prokaryote to eukaryote ratios in environmental samples by SSU rDNA length polymorphism
Microbial communities are important regulators of many processes in all ecosystems. Understanding of ecosystem processes requires at least an overview of the involved microorganisms. While in-depth identification of microbial species in environmental samples can be achieved by next generation sequencing, profiling of whole microbial communities can be accomplished via less labour-intensive approaches. Especially automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (ARISA) are of interest as they are highly specific even at fine scales and widely applicable for environmental samples. Yet, established protocols lack the possibility to compare prokaryotic and eukaryotic communities as different primer sets are necessary. However, shifts in the eukaryote to prokaryote ratio can be a useful indicator for ecosystem processes like decomposition or nutrient cycling. We propose a protocol to analyse prokaryotic and eukaryotic communities using a single primer pair based reaction based on a region with variable length (V4, which is about 180 bp shorter in prokaryotes compared to eukaryotes) in the small ribosomal subunit flanked by two highly conservative regions. Shifts in the prokaryotic and eukaryotic ratio between samples can be reliably detected by fragment length polymorphism analysis as well as sequencing of this region. Together with established approaches such as ARISA or 16S and ITS rDNA sequencing, this can provide a more complex insight into microbial community shifts and ecosystem processes.
KeywordsARISA Environmental samples Metagenome sequencing Microbial communities Prokaryotic to eukaryotic ratios
We thank M. Hochholzer, A. Kirpal, K. Söllner, U. Hell, C. Knaus and J. Kannieß for help with sample preparation and laboratory work.
AG conceived the project. AG and ARW performed the experiments, analysed the data, and prepared the manuscript.
This study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant (DFG-GU 1818/1-1).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
This article does not include any studies involving human participants or animals.
- Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F, Bai Y, Bisanz JE, Bittinger K, Brejnrod A, Brislawn CJ, Brown CT, Callahan BJ, Caraballo-Rodríguez AM, Chase J, Cope EK, Da Silva R, Diener C, Dorrestein PC, Douglas GM, Durall DM, Duvallet C, Edwardson CF, Ernst M, Estaki M, Fouquier J, Gauglitz JM, Gibbons SM, Gibson DL, Gonzalez A, Gorlick K, Guo J, Hillmann B, Holmes S, Holste H, Huttenhower C, Huttley GA, Janssen S, Jarmusch AK, Jiang L, Kaehler BD, Kang KB, Keefe CR, Keim P, Kelley ST, Knights D, Koester I, Kosciolek T, Kreps J, Langille MGI, Lee J, Ley R, Liu Y-X, Loftfield E, Lozupone C, Maher M, Marotz C, Martin BD, McDonald D, McIver LJ, Melnik AV, Metcalf JL, Morgan SC, Morton JT, Naimey AT, Navas-Molina JA, Nothias LF, Orchanian SB, Pearson T, Peoples SL, Petras D, Preuss ML, Pruesse E, Rasmussen LB, Rivers A, Robeson MS, Rosenthal P, Segata N, Shaffer M, Shiffer A, Sinha R, Song SJ, Spear JR, Swafford AD, Thompson LR, Torres PJ, Trinh P, Tripathi A, Turnbaugh PJ, Ul-Hasan S, van der Hooft JJJ, Vargas F, Vázquez-Baeza Y, Vogtmann E, von Hippel M, Walters W, Wan Y, Wang M, Warren J, Weber KC, Williamson CHD, Willis AD, Xu ZZ, Zaneveld JR, Zhang Y, Zhu Q, Knight R, Caporaso JG (2019) Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol 37:852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bünemann EK, Oberson A, Liebisch F, Keller F, Annaheim KE, Huguenin-Elie O, Frossard E (2012) Rapid microbial phosphorus immobilization dominates gross phosphorus fluxes in a grassland soil with low inorganic phosphorus availability. Soil Biol Biochem 51:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cardinale M, Brusetti L, Quatrini P, Borin S, Puglia AM, Rizzi A, Zanardini E, Sorlini C, Corselli C, Daffonchio D (2004) Comparison of different primer sets for use in automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of complex bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6147–6156. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.10.6147-6156.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fisher MM, Triplett EW (1999) Automated approach for ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of microbial diversity and its application to freshwater bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4630–4636Google Scholar
- Hernando-Morales V, Varela MM, Needham DM, Cram J, Fuhrman JA, Teira E (2018) Vertical and seasonal patterns control bacterioplankton communities at two horizontally coherent coastal upwelling sites off Galicia (NW Spain). Microb Ecol 76:866–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-018-1179-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ranjard L, Poly F, Lata J-C, Mougel C, Thioulouse J, Nazaret S (2001) Characterization of bacterial and fungal soil communities by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints: biological and methodological variability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4479–4487. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.10.4479-4487.2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Turner S, Pryer KM, Miao VPW, Palmer JD (1999) Investigating deep phylogenetic relationships among cyanobacteria and plastids by small subunit rRNA sequence analysis. J Eukaryotic Microbiology 46:327–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.1999.tb04612.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van der Heijden MGA, Bakker R, Verwaal J, Scheublin TR, Rutten M, van Logtestijn R, Staehelin C (2006) Symbiotic bacteria as a determinant of plant community structure and plant productivity in dune grassland. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 56:178–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00086.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- White T, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) PCR Protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press, London, pp 315–322Google Scholar