Is DNA metabarcoding an option for formaldehyde-preserved zooplankton time series?

dc.contributor.authorAitor Albaina
dc.contributor.authorAnders Lanzen
dc.contributor.authorIrati Miguel
dc.contributor.authorFernando Rendo
dc.contributor.authorMaria Santos
dc.coverage.spatialBolivia
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-22T20:02:36Z
dc.date.available2026-03-22T20:02:36Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractThe recovery of amplifiable DNA from formaldehyde–fixed (FF) zooplankton samples has long been considered unfeasible. Nevertheless, advances in DNA sequencing and methods for retrieving highly degraded genetic material have demonstrated that even million–year–old samples and FF museum specimens can yield usable DNA. To access the biological information preserved in long–term zooplankton time series, we assessed methodologies for extracting amplifiable DNA from community samples stored for up to 28 years in formaldehyde at room temperature. On one hand, we report the failure of a method previously described as successful for FF zooplankton samples, likely due to the cold storage conditions (4° C) used in the original study. On the other hand, by adapting two extraction protocols designed for FF museum specimens —representing harsher and softer alternatives (HHA and HPC, respectively) — we successfully amplified and sequenced a subset of FF zooplankton samples. As expected, DNA integrity and sample pH were inversely related to preservation time, and only short DNA fragments were recovered, ruling out the use of commonly employed around 300 bp metabarcoding markers. While DNA integrity appeared to be a better predictor than DNA yield for amplification success, the presence of a gel band of the expected size did not always guarantee congruence with microscopy–based assessments. Although amplifiable DNA was recovered from most samples, including some of the oldest, community compositions concordant with microscopy were consistently recovered only from samples preserved for up to two years. Beyond this point, the HHA and HPC methods produced divergent results, reflecting a trade–off between the removal of formaldehyde–induced cross–linkages and the avoidance of additional DNA damage. Among the small universal markers tested (around 120–170 bp), including one nuclear rRNA marker and two mitochondrial markers, only the 18S rRNA V9 region consistently amplified. We conclude by providing a set of recommendations aimed at improving the methods presented here.
dc.identifier.doi10.64898/2026.02.06.704415
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.64898/2026.02.06.704415
dc.identifier.urihttps://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/79645
dc.sourceUniversity of the Basque Country
dc.subjectBiology
dc.subjectDNA
dc.subjectDNA extraction
dc.subjectZooplankton
dc.subjectDNA sequencing
dc.subjectDNA profiling
dc.subjectPolymerase chain reaction
dc.subjectGenetics
dc.subjectYield (engineering)
dc.subjectMicrosatellite
dc.titleIs DNA metabarcoding an option for formaldehyde-preserved zooplankton time series?
dc.typearticle

Files