Skip to content
Menu
Cellular & Organismic Networks @ LMU Munich
  • The Group
  • Research
    • Pollinator-Microbe-Plant interactions
    • Bee-Plant-Interactions
    • Tools
    • Other Ecology Research
    • Other Microbiome Research
  • Publications
  • Institution
Cellular & Organismic Networks @ LMU Munich

Preservation methods of honey bee-collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding

Posted on November 28, 2021June 28, 2022

Pollen metabarcoding is emerging as a powerful tool for ecological research and offers unprecedented scale in citizen science projects for environmental monitoring via honey bees. Biases in metabarcoding can be introduced at any stage of sample processing and preservation is at the forefront of the pipeline. While in metabarcoding studies pollen has been preserved at − 20 °C (FRZ), this is not the best method for citizen scientists. Herein, we compared this method with ethanol (EtOH), silica gel (SG) and room temperature (RT) for preservation of pollen collected from hives in Austria and Denmark. After ~ 4 months of storage, DNAs were extracted with a food kit, and their quality and concentration measured. Most DNA extracts exhibited 260/280 absorbance ratios close to the optimal 1.8, with RT samples from Austria performing slightly worse than FRZ and SG samples (P < 0.027). Statistical differences were also detected for DNA concentration, with EtOH samples producing lower yields than RT and FRZ samples in both countries and SG in Austria (P < 0.042). Yet, qualitative and quantitative assessments of floral composition obtained using high-throughput sequencing with the ITS2 barcode gave non-significant effects of preservation methods on richness, relative abundance and Shannon diversity, in both countries. While freezing and ethanol are commonly employed for archiving tissue for molecular applications, desiccation is cheaper and easier to use regarding both storage and transportation. Since SG is less dependent on ambient humidity and less prone to contamination than RT, we recommend SG for preserving pollen for metabarcoding. SG is straightforward for laymen to use and hence robust for widespread application in citizen science studies.

Quaresma, A., R. Brodschneider, K. Gratzer, A. Gray, A. Keller, O. Kilpinen, J. Rufino, J. van der Steen, F. Vejsnaes, and M. A. Pinto (2021) “Preservation meth- ods of honey-bee collected pollen are not a source of bias in ITS2 metabarcoding” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment in press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09563-4

Tweets by CiyaTheFox

Recent Posts

  • Plants, pollinators and their interactions under global ecological change: The role of pollen DNA metabarcoding
  • Pollinator-flower interactions in gardens during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of 2020
  • Bumble bee workers face decreased efficiency of pollen collection and reduction in size due to Sulfoxaflor exposure in late European summer
  • Phylogenetic relatedness of food plants reveals highest insect herbivore specialisation at intermediate temperatures along a broad climatic gradient
  • Diets maintained in a changing world: Does land-use intensification alter wild bee communities by selecting for flexible generalists?

Categories

  • Bee-Plant-Interactions
  • Other Ecology Research
  • Other Microbiome Research
  • Plant Microbiomes
  • Pollinator Microbiomes
  • Tools
©2023 Cellular & Organismic Networks @ LMU Munich | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com