Abstract
The advance of high-throughput molecular biology tools allows in-depth profiling of microbial communities in soils, which possess a high diversity of prokaryotic microorganisms. Amplicon-based sequencing of 16S rRNA genes is the most common approach to studying the richness and composition of soil prokaryotes. To reliably detect different taxonomic lineages of microorganisms in a single soil sample, an adequate pipeline including DNA isolation, primer selection, PCR amplification, library preparation, DNA sequencing, and bioinformatic post-processing is required. Besides DNA sequencing quality and depth, the selection of PCR primers and PCR amplification reactions arguably have the largest influence on the results. This study tested the performance and potential bias of two primer pairs, i.e., 515F (Parada)-806R (Apprill) and 515F (Parada)-926R (Quince) in the standard pipelines of 16S rRNA gene Illumina amplicon sequencing protocol developed by the Earth Microbiome Project (EMP), against shotgun metagenome-based 16S rRNA gene reads. The evaluation was conducted using five differently managed soils. We observed a higher richness of soil total prokaryotes by using reverse primer 806R compared to 926R, contradicting to in silico evaluation results. Both primer pairs revealed various degrees of taxon-specific bias compared to metagenome-derived 16S rRNA gene reads. Nonetheless, we found consistent patterns of microbial community variation associated with different land uses, irrespective of primers used. Total microbial communities, as well as ammonia oxidizing archaea (AOA), the predominant ammonia oxidizers in these soils, shifted along with increased soil pH due to agricultural management. In the unmanaged low pH plot abundance of AOA was dominated by the acid-tolerant NS-Gamma clade, whereas limed agricultural plots were dominated by neutral-alkaliphilic NS-Delta/NS-Alpha clades. This study stresses how primer selection influences community composition and highlights the importance of primer selection for comparative and integrative studies, and that conclusions must be drawn with caution if data from different sequencing pipelines are to be compared.