| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril; Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia. |
|
Data corrente: |
28/03/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
27/01/2023 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
PAULA, D. P.; BARROS, S. K. A.; PITTA, R. M.; BARRETO, M. R.; TOGAWA, R. C.; ANDOW, D. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
DEBORA PIRES PAULA, Cenargen; SUELLEN KARINA ALBERTONI BARROS, UFMT; RAFAEL MAJOR PITTA, CPAMT; MARLITON ROCHA BARRETO, UFMT; ROBERTO COITI TOGAWA, Cenargen; DAVID A. ANDOW, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. |
|
Título: |
Metabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
GigaScience, v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2022. |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Abstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not. MenosAbstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while ... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Diet analysis; Environmental DNA; Generalist predators; Gut content analysis. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
--
O Insetos e Entomologia |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/232999/1/giac020.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02285naa a2200241 a 4500
001 2151304
005 2023-01-27
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giac020$2DOI
100 1 $aPAULA, D. P.
245 $aMetabarcoding versus mapping unassembled shotgun reads for identification of prey consumed by arthropod epigeal predators.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aAbstract: A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, weevaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro). Inamockpreycommunity,metabarcodingdidnotdetectanyprey,probablyowingtoprimerchoiceand/orpreferentialpredator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43?71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46?273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy.There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro,while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar,but partially complementary,detection of prey in arthropod predator guts.However, while Lazaro wasalmost2×moreexpensive,thenumberofreadswasrelatedtotheamountofpreyDNA,suggestingthatLazaro mayprovide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.
653 $aDiet analysis
653 $aEnvironmental DNA
653 $aGeneralist predators
653 $aGut content analysis
700 1 $aBARROS, S. K. A.
700 1 $aPITTA, R. M.
700 1 $aBARRETO, M. R.
700 1 $aTOGAWA, R. C.
700 1 $aANDOW, D. A.
773 $tGigaScience$gv. 11, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril (CPAMT) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Cerrados. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cpac.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Florestas. |
|
Data corrente: |
11/09/2018 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
11/09/2018 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
|
Autoria: |
BROWN, G. G.; SILVA, E. da; THOMAZINI, M. J.; NIVA, C. C.; DECAËNS, T.; CUNHA, L. F. N.; NADOLNY, H. S.; DEMETRIO, W. C.; SANTOS, A.; FERREIRA, T.; MAIA, L. S.; CONRADO, A. C.; SEGALLA, R. F.; FERREIRA, A. C.; PASINI, A.; BARTZ, M. L. C.; SAUTTER, K. D.; JAMES, S. W.; BARETTA, D.; ANTONIOLLI, Z. I.; IGLESIAS BRIONES, M. J.; SOUSA, J. P.; RÖMBKE, J.; LAVELLE, P. |
|
Afiliação: |
GEORGE GARDNER BROWN, CNPF; Elodie da Silva, Pós doutoranda da Embrapa Florestas; MARCILIO JOSE THOMAZINI, CNPF; CINTIA CARLA NIVA, CPAC; Thibaud Decaëns, Université de Montpellier; Luís F. N. Cunha, Cardiff University; Herlon S. Nadolny, UFPR; Wilian C. Demetrio, UFPR; Alessandra Santos, UFPR; Talita Ferreira, UFPR; Lilianne S. Maia, UFPR; Ana Caroline Conrado, UFPR; Rodrigo F. Segalla, UFPR; Alexandre Casadei Ferreira, UFPR; Amarildo Pasini, UEL; Marie L. C. Bartz, Universidade Positivo; Klaus D. Sautter, Universidade Positivo; Samuel W. James, Maharishi University of Management; Dilmar Baretta, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina; Zaida Inês Antoniolli, UFSM; Maria Jesus Iglesias Briones, Universidad de Vigo; José Paulo Sousa, Universidade de Coimbra; Jörg Römbke, ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH; Patrick Lavelle, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement. |
|
Título: |
The role of soil fauna in soil health and delivery of ecosystem services. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2018 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: REICOSKY, D. (Ed.). Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture: v. 1: fundamentals. [S.l.]: Burleigh Dodds Science Publ., 2018. p. 1-45. |
|
Série: |
(Burleigh Dodds series in agricultural science). |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Serviço ambiental. |
|
Thesagro: |
Biodiversidade; Fauna; Solo. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Biodiversity; Ecosystem services; Soil; Soil fauna. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01433naa a2200493 a 4500
001 2095357
005 2018-09-11
008 2018 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aBROWN, G. G.
245 $aThe role of soil fauna in soil health and delivery of ecosystem services.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2018
490 $a(Burleigh Dodds series in agricultural science).
650 $aBiodiversity
650 $aEcosystem services
650 $aSoil
650 $aSoil fauna
650 $aBiodiversidade
650 $aFauna
650 $aSolo
653 $aServiço ambiental
700 1 $aSILVA, E. da
700 1 $aTHOMAZINI, M. J.
700 1 $aNIVA, C. C.
700 1 $aDECAËNS, T.
700 1 $aCUNHA, L. F. N.
700 1 $aNADOLNY, H. S.
700 1 $aDEMETRIO, W. C.
700 1 $aSANTOS, A.
700 1 $aFERREIRA, T.
700 1 $aMAIA, L. S.
700 1 $aCONRADO, A. C.
700 1 $aSEGALLA, R. F.
700 1 $aFERREIRA, A. C.
700 1 $aPASINI, A.
700 1 $aBARTZ, M. L. C.
700 1 $aSAUTTER, K. D.
700 1 $aJAMES, S. W.
700 1 $aBARETTA, D.
700 1 $aANTONIOLLI, Z. I.
700 1 $aIGLESIAS BRIONES, M. J.
700 1 $aSOUSA, J. P.
700 1 $aRÖMBKE, J.
700 1 $aLAVELLE, P.
773 $tIn: REICOSKY, D. (Ed.). Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture:$gv. 1: fundamentals. [S.l.]: Burleigh Dodds Science Publ., 2018. p. 1-45.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Florestas (CNPF) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
