Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Figure S1. Pictures of sorted specimens

Pictures of the specimens sorted into small, medium and large individuals. Also provides information on how S, M and L tissue was pooled to generate the proportionally sorted (So) and unsorted (Un) samples.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-1

Figure S2. Flowchart detailing laboratory processing

Overview of the steps carried out for sample sorting and processing in the laboratory.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-2

Figure S3. DNA extraction protocol

Shows the step where the digested buffers of S, M and L were pooled to generate unsorted (Un) and sorted (So) samples.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-3

Figure S4. Sequencing depth and sequences discarded in bioinformatic processing

Barplot showing the number of total reads and proportion of sequences discarded in subsequent bioinformatic processing steps for all samples.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-4

Figure S5. Flowchart detailing the bioinformatic pipeline

Figure giving an overview of the metabarcoding pipeline applied to this dataset.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-5

Figure S6. Reproducibility between HiSeq lanes

Comparison of relative OTUs abundances between both HiSeq lanes.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-6

Figure S7. Plot of OTU table

Visualisation of taxa detected within S, M, L, Un, So DNA extractions, with 4 different primer combinations. Data is also compared to morphological identifications and number of specimens of each morphologically identified taxon.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-7

Figure S8. Database completeness

Plot showing the percent match of each OTU to the reference database, under consideration of read abundance.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-8

Figure S9. Taxa identification with metabarcoding and morphology

Comparison of number of taxa identified with morphology and DNA metabarcoding on different taxonomic resolutions.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-9

Figure S10. Taxa detection in sorted and unsorted samples

Comparison of the amount of diversity and taxa detected in sorted samples (So) and unsorted samples (Un).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-10

Table S1. Used identifiaction keys

Used litrature for taxa identification

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-11

Table S2. OTU table

Detailed OTU table giving the number of reads for each sample, including assigned taxonomy and OTU sequence.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-12

Table S3. Morphologically identified taxa

Table giving an overview of morphologically identified taxa and abundance of specimens in S, M and L for both sample locations.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-13

Dryad DOI : Metabarcoding pipeline scripts

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2561v3/supp-14

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Vasco Elbrecht conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Bianca Peinert conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper, identified specimens.

Florian Leese conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

Sequence data is available on the NCBI SRA archive: SRR3399056 and SRR3399057

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data has been supplied as a supplementary file and additional sequence data is available on the NCBI SRA archive.

Funding

FL and VE are supported by a grant of the Kurt Eberhard Bode foundation to FL (No Grant number available). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies