5Center for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany;
6Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Gene Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 171 21 Stockholm, Sweden;
7Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;
8Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Protocol Citation: Elżbieta Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, Piotr Łukasik, Mateusz Buczek, Junchen Deng, Emily Hartop, Harald Havnås, Monika Prus-Frankowska, Carina R. Ugarph, Paulina Viteri, Anders F. Andresson, Tomas Roslin, Ayco J. M. Tack, Fredrik Ronquist, Andreia Miraldo 2023. FAVIS: Fast and Versatile protocol for metabarcoding of bulk Insect Samples from large-scale diversity monitoring projects. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.kqdg36261g25/v2Version created by Ela Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation grant to Fredrik Ronquist
Grant ID: KAW 2017.088
Swedish Research Council
Grant ID: 2018-04620
Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange
Grant ID: PPN/PPO/2018/1/00015
Polish National Science Centre
Grant ID: 2018/31/B/NZ8/01158
European Research Council Synergy Grant (LIFEPLAN)
Grant ID: 856506
Swedish Research Council
Grant ID: 2019-04493
Abstract
Here we describe a non-destructive metabarcoding protocol that is optimized for high-throughput processing of Malaise trap samples and other bulk insect samples. The protocol details the process from obtaining bulk samples up to submitting them for sequencing. It is divided into four sections: 1) Laboratory workspace preparation; 2) Sample processing - decanting ethanol, measuring the wet-weight biomass and the concentration of the preservative ethanol, performing non-destructive lysis and preserving the insect material for future work; 3) DNA extraction and purification; and 4) Library preparation and sequencing. The protocol is cost-effective and relies on readily available reagents and materials. For the steps that require expensive infrastructure – such as the DNA purification robots or sequencing center services – we suggest alternative low-cost solutions when possible. The use of this protocol yields a comprehensive description of the number of species present in a given sample, their relative read abundances and the overall insect biomass. To date, we have successfully applied the protocol to more than 7000 Malaise trap samples obtained from Sweden and Madagascar. The protocol allows one lab technician to process 180 samples (2x96-well plates when we include all negative and positive controls), from bulk insect catches to ready-to-sequence libraries, in 7 working days. In other words, samples collected over 1 week from 565 Malaise traps can be processed in one month, allowing the timely delivery of the results.
Guidelines
Method for wet-weighing of insect biomass from Malaise trap samples
Two different methods to calibrate the timing of ethanol drainage from Malaise trap samples are described, including 1) dripping interval between ethanol drops and 2) time since the start of ethanol draining.
Methods
To establish a reliable method for wet-weighing of the biomass from Malaise trap samples, we used ten Malaise trap samples with visually different amounts of insect biomass, each filled with 450ml of 95% ethanol. These samples were used to test two methods of ethanol draining before wet-weighing the biomass: The first method (method 1) used different dripping time intervals before wet-weighing, as adapted from Hallmann et al. (2017), while the second method (method 2) additionally used time since the start of ethanol draining. To use the same samples for testing both methods, samples were refilled with 450 ml 95% ethanol after testing the first method. All samples were prepared for ethanol draining in the same way.
To prepare samples for ethanol draining, samples were carefully opened and a pre-cut nylon mesh circle (7 mm diameter, 300 µM aperture) was placed over the bottle opening. A plastic bottle seal was placed over the mesh to tighten it, and to keep it centred during draining. For one sample at a time, the ethanol from the insect bottle was drained into another bottle (the ethanol receiving bottle) using a funnel by carefully tilting the sample and rotating it until most of the ethanol was drained from the insect bottle and the ethanol started dripping. Once ethanol started dripping from the bottle we placed the bottle against the funnel walls at an angle of 45° . We set a chronometer at the exact time the ethanol started flowing from the sample.
During draining, we measured the absolute weight of the sample (i.e. weight of the insect biomass, bottle, nylon mesh and bottle seal) at several occasions. For method 1, we measured the absolute weight of the sample when the time between two drops falling from the bottle was 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 seconds. For method 2, the absolute weight of the samples was measured after 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 45 and 60 minutes since the start of ethanol draining. Additionally, the absolute weight of all samples was measured after leaving the sample overnight without a lid for 16 hours at room temperature. The wet-weight of the insect biomass was calculated by subtracting the weight of the bottle, nylon mesh and bottle seal from the absolute weight.
Results
For method 1, wet-weights of insect biomass considerably dropped from the start of ethanol draining to a dripping-interval of 10 seconds, especially so for larger samples (fig. S1.1a, table S1.1a). However, once the dripping-interval reached 20 seconds, the wet-weight of insect biomass stabilized, irrespective of the starting weight of the sample (fig. S1.1a, table S1.1a). Samples that were left overnight lost on average 2.9 grams of wet weight compared to samples with a dripping-interval of 50 seconds.
For method 2, wet-weights of insect biomass considerably dropped during the first 10 minutes since the start of ethanol draining (fig. S1.1b, table S1.1b). After 20 minutes of draining, wet-weights stabilized for all samples irrespective of their initial weight (fig. S1.1b, table S1.1b). Samples that were left overnight lost on average 1.6 grams of wet weight compared to samples that were drained for 60 minutes.
Table S1.1. Insect biomass from ten samples after ethanol drainage following (a) method 1 and (b) method 2. Panel (a) shows the measurements of wet weights of samples (in grams) with a dripping interval of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 seconds (method 1), as well as the wet weight of the samples after overnight drying (16 hours). Panel (b) shows the wet weight of samples (in grams) that were drained for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 60 minutes (method 2), as well as the wet weight of the samples after overnight drying (16 hours).
(a) Method 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Sample
Dripping
interval
overnight
1 sec
2 sec
5 sec
10 sec
20 sec
50 sec
S01
41.71
37.50
37.37
37.42
33.37
33.26
28.52
S02
61.45
46.54
43.72
42.11
39.54
38.43
34.62
S03
26.89
25.79
24.23
23.64
22.13
21.96
18.06
S04
17.22
11.98
11.76
11.02
9.59
9.18
6.72
S05
14.09
13.88
13.72
12.98
12.71
12.48
8.63
S06
9.81
9.54
9.37
9.20
9.13
8.72
5.66
S07
5.93
5.43
4.92
4.61
4.50
4.24
2.05
S08
4.78
4.65
4.55
4.30
4.06
3.90
1.72
S09
4.28
3.65
3.48
2.75
2.53
2.40
1.36
S10
3.45
3.24
3.10
2.97
2.79
2.70
1.05
(b) Method 2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Sample
Time
since start of draining
overnight
1 min
5 min
10 min
15 min
20 min
25 min
30 min
35 min
40 min
45 min
60 min
S01
114.23
38.68
34.81
34.16
33.19
32.42
32.16
31.81
31.54
31.22
30.81
28.52
S02
144.32
46.66
40.52
40.30
39.66
38.91
38.45
37.98
37.57
37.27
36.70
34.62
S03
150.03
28.08
23.56
23.04
22.33
21.74
21.61
21.06
20.71
20.52
20.11
18.06
S04
85.71
18.18
11.61
10.32
9.76
9.48
9.36
9.14
8.99
8.85
8.69
6.72
S05
28.48
13.38
12.17
11.91
11.54
11.32
11.16
10.94
10.78
10.65
10.47
8.63
S06
25.55
10.58
9.59
9.05
8.92
8.66
8.55
8.44
8.29
8.16
7.98
5.66
S07
6.00
4.08
3.64
3.52
3.42
3.34
3.28
3.22
3.16
3.10
3.04
2.05
S08
6.15
3.54
3.32
3.26
3.21
3.16
3.11
3.06
3.02
2.98
2.92
1.72
S09
4.15
2.62
2.49
2.43
2.38
2.34
2.30
2.26
2.22
2.18
2.13
1.36
S10
3.05
2.41
2.35
2.31
2.27
2.23
2.20
2.18
2.14
2.10
2.06
1.05
References:
Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, et al. (2017)More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Materials
In this section we list consumables, chemicals and reagents that are needed to run the protocol. This is not an exhaustive list as we assume that you have access to common lab equipment (pipettes, centrifuges, vortex, etc) and certain common lab consumables (filtered pipette tips, petri dishes etc.). For less commonly used lab equipment and consumables that are used in the protocol we opt to reference them below.