A comparative analysis of real-time quantitative PCR and metabarcoding methods for eDNA-based detection of the toxic dinophyte Alexandrium tamiyavanichii (Dinophyceae).

The marine dinophyte Alexandrium tamiyavanichii is a toxigenic species that produces a group of neurotoxins that is responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans. Early detection of the species is essential for efficient monitoring. Harmful microalgal monitoring systems have evolved over the years with the advent of environmental DNA (eDNA)-based species detection techniques. In this study, eDNA samples were collected from a large-scale sampling covering the southern South China Sea. The sensitivity and specificity of metabarcoding of the V4 and V9 18S ribosomal DNA barcodes by high-throughput sequencing (HTS) were compared to the species-specific real-time qPCR targeting the A. tamiyavanichii ITS2 region. Environmental samples were screened for A. tamiyavanichii by qPCR (n = 43) and analyzed with metabarcoding (n = 30). Our results revealed a high occupancy profile across samples for both methods; 88% by qPCR, and 80-83% by HTS. When comparing the consistency between the two approaches, only two samples out of 30 were discordant. The V4 and V9 molecular units detected in each sample were positively correlated with the qPCR ITS2 gene copies (V4, r _s  = 0.67, p < 0.0001; V9, r _s  = 0.65, p < 0.0001), indicating that metabarcoding could be used as a useful tool for early detection of the species. Our results also revealed that the estimation of A. tamiyavanichii cell abundances based on the HTS read abundances was comparable to that of the qPCR quantification. For long-term monitoring, metabarcoding could serve as a cost-effective screening of detecting not only single HAB species but also simultaneously detecting a multitude of potentially harmful species, which is valuable in informing the subsequent implementation of species-specific monitoring strategies.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)