Author Archives:

July/August goals

My goals for the remainder of July are to obtain DNA samples of high quality and purity for ddRAD / EpiRad library generation. This includes performing ethanol precipitation of the DNA samples I have.

For August, my goal is to generate the RAD libraries and submit them for sequencing. Maybe I will even get to start in on the bioinformatics.

Carrie Bow data – May 2016

 

Branching Porites samples collected in the vicinity of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize, May 2016
ID number Location Coordinates Habitat Depth from depth gauge (ft) Depth (m) Type (based on quick visual ID) Collection date
101 CBC30C N 16° 48.126′, W 088° 04.729′ LSG 26 7.9248 Ppor/Pfur 5/20/16
102 CBC45S N 16° 47.939′, W 088° 04.656′ IRS 55 16.764 Ppor 5/20/16
103 CBC45N N 16° 48.294′, W 088° 04.666′ IRS 53 16.1544 Pfur/Pdiv 5/21/16
104 CBC45N N 16° 48.294′, W 088° 04.666′ IRS 54 16.4592 Pfur 5/21/16
105 SR30N N 16° 46.792′, W 088° 04.599′ LSG 32 9.7536 Pfur/Ppor 5/21/16
106 SR30N N 16° 46.792′, W 088° 04.599′ LSG 23 7.0104 Pfur 5/21/16
109 SR45N N 16° 46.821′, W 088° 04.521′ IRS 48 14.6304 Pfur 5/22/16
107 SR45N N 16° 46.821′, W 088° 04.521′ IRS 41 12.4968 Pfur/Pdiv 5/22/16
110 CBC45C N 16° 48.146′, W 088° 04.658′ IRS 46 14.0208 Ppor 5/22/16
111 CBC15C N 16° 48.120′, W 088° 04.751′ USG 26 7.9248 Ppor 5/22/16
108 CBC15C N 16° 48.120′, W 088° 04.751′ USG 23 7.0104 Pfur/Pdiv 5/22/16
114 SR60N N 16° 46.798′, W 088° 04.511′ OR 51 15.5448 Pfur 5/23/16
112 SR30C N 16 46.571′, W 088 04.524′ LSG 28 8.5344 Pfur/Pdiv 5/23/16
113 SR30C N 16 46.571′, W 088 04.524′ LSG 28 8.5344 Ppor 5/23/16
115 CBC backreef 16 48.354, 88 4.998 backreef 4 1.2192 Ppor 5/23/16
116 CBC backreef 16 48.354, 88 4.998 backreef 4 1.2192 Pfur/Pdiv 5/23/16
117 CBC backreef 16 48.354, 88 4.998 backreef 4 1.2192 Pdiv 5/23/16
118 Twin Cays – prop roots 16 49.645, 88 6.364 mangroves 2 0.6096 Pdiv 5/24/16
119 Twin Cays – prop roots 16 49.645, 88 6.364 mangroves 2 0.6096 *P. astreoides 5/24/16
120 Twin Cays – prop roots 16 49.645, 88 6.364 mangroves 2 0.6096 Pdiv 5/24/16
121 Twin Cays – prop roots 16 49.645, 88 6.364 mangroves 2 0.6096 Pdiv 5/24/16
122 Twin Cays – prop roots 16 49.645, 88 6.364 mangroves 2 0.6096 Pdiv 5/24/16
125 SR60N N 16° 46.798′, W 088° 04.511′ OR 54 16.4592 Pfur/Pdiv 5/24/16
126 SR60N N 16° 46.798′, W 088° 04.511′ OR 57 17.3736 Ppor 5/24/16
131 CBC backreef (turtlegrass) 16 48.181, 88 4.885 turtlegrass/backreef 1.5 0.4572 Pfur/Pdiv 5/25/16
130 CBC backreef 16 48.181, 88 4.885 backreef 2.5 0.762 Ppor 5/25/16
123 CBC backreef 16 48.181, 88 4.885 backreef 2.5 0.762 Ppor 5/25/16
128 CBC backreef 16 48.181, 88 4.885 backreef 2 0.6096 Pfur/Pdiv 5/25/16
127 CBC lagoon 16 48.115, 88 4.983 lagoon/cut 9 2.7432 Pfur/Pdiv 5/25/16
124 CBC lagoon 16 48.115, 88 4.983 lagoon/cut 15 4.572 Pfur/Pdiv 5/25/16
129 CBC backreef (turtlegrass) 16 48.115, 88 4.983 turtlegrass/backreef 3 0.9144 Pfur/Pdiv 5/25/16

 

In addition to the samples above, I collected the following samples of isolated symbionts using the NaOH treatment protocol of Zamoum et al. (2012).

Incubation 1:

0.5 hr incubation in 1.5 ml 2M NaOH at ambient temperature (28C). Samples vigorously shaken every ~15 min. Final incubation medium centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 2 min and fixed in 1.5 ml SS-DMSO

Samples:

Past1, Past2, Pdiv1, Pdiv2, Ppor

Incubation 2:

1.5 hr incubation in 1.4 ml 1M NaOH @ 28.5C. Samples shaken vigorously every ~15 min. Final incubation medium centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 2 min and fixed in 1.5 ml SS-DMSO.

Samples (note: these do not necessarily match individuals from previous incubation):

Past1, Past2, Pdiv1, Pdiv2, Ppor

 

Goals for May and beyond

It’s high time I laid out some goals for this spring and summer to keep me on track, so here they are:

May

1. Prep reagents and supplies for Carrie Bow trip, including SS-DMSO, tubes, and coolers. Need at least 750 ml SS-DMSO, shoot for 1 L. Need at least 30 tubes, shoot for 50. Bring some shears.

2. Think about methods for zooxanthellae separation while at Carrie Bow, especially this method. May need to bring some NaOH – check with Zach. Ultimately the goal is to get some separated host and symbiont DNA as reference material for RADseq. Will need proper centrifuge tubes – check with Zach.

3. Collect coral samples for Porites porites study while at Carrie Bow.

4. Collect isolated P. astreoides and P. porites host and symbiont cells/tissue while at Carrie Bow.

June

1. Extract DNA from samples collected in May, as well as re-extract any samples from November with low quantity/quality.

2. Purify DNA for all samples destined for RADseq.

3. Confirm with Adam the timing of RADseq work.

4. Start REU project on symbiont genotyping. Narrow down specific samples / question. Currently favoring idea of evaluating symbiont identity in the three branching Porites related to the Hall Award proposal. This could be a separate paper.

July/August

1. Wrap up REU project

2. Perform RADseq and submit samples for sequencing.

DNA quality check

Today I continued my assessment of DNA quality for P. astreoides samples extracted earlier this winter by running them on a gel (using this protocol). Here is the gel:

Gel_030716

Again, quite a range of quality. I now have looked at nearly all samples and here is my assessment (this data can also be found in this spreadsheet):

Sample # Qubit conc. (ng/ul) Sample volume Total DNA quantity (ng) run on gel? high MW DNA present? relative quality score (1 = low)
past_87 45.6 50 2280 y yes – very good 5
past_89 48 50 2400 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_85 143 50 7150 y yes – very good 5
past_88b 121 50 6050 y yes – very good 5
past_84 188 50 9400 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_91 194 50 9700 y yes – ok 4
past_88a 182 50 9100 y yes – ok 4
past_86 234 50 11700 y yes – ok 4
past_90 218 50 10900 y yes – very good 5
past_83 194 50 9700 y little – poor 1
past_15 5.92 200 1184 y yes – ok 4
past_16 3.46 200 692 n nd nd
past_96 6.82 200 1364 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_19 5.4 200 1080 y some – mostly low MW 2
Past_14 3.92 200 784 n nd nd
past_82 7.38 200 1476 y yes – very good 5
past_98 7.92 200 1584 y yes – very good 5
past_13 10.4 200 2080 y yes – ok 4
past_12 3.1 200 620 n nd nd
past_18 5.88 200 1176 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_99 5.16 200 1032 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_17 10 200 2000 y yes – ok 4
past_95 5.88 200 1176 y some – mostly low MW 2
past_11 10.4 200 2080 y yes – very good 5
past_80 10.8 200 2160 y yes – ok 4
past_81 8.82 200 1764 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_100 2.28 200 456 n nd nd
past_1 11.3 200 2260 y yes – very good 5
past_10 20 200 4000 y yes – very good 5
past_97 too low 200 nd n nd nd
past_10-2 nd 200 nd n nd nd
past_1-2 nd 200 nd n nd nd
past_97-2 nd 200 nd n nd nd
past_100-2 nd 200 nd n nd nd
past_w11 35.2 50 1760 y some – mostly low MW 2
past_3 36.6 50 1830 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_2 99.4 50 4970 y yes – ok 4
past_w1 330 50 16500 y yes – ok 4
past_4 47.2 50 2360 y band too faint
past_w3 172 50 8600 y yes – ok 4
past_5 77 50 3850 y yes – ok 4
past_6 66.2 50 3310 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_7 27.4 50 1370 y some – mostly low MW 2
past_9 244 50 12200 y some – w/ smearing 3
past_8 37.6 50 1880 y yes – very good 5
past_12 18.2 50 910 y yes – ok 4
ppor_2 91.4 50 4570 y yes – ok 4
ppor_6 60 50 3000 y yes – ok 4
ppor_10 122 50 6100 y yes – ok 4
ppor_3 142 50 7100 y yes – ok 4
ppor_7 132 50 6600 y yes – very good 5
ppor_8 102 50 5100 y yes – very good 5
ppor_4 69.8 50 3490 y yes – very good 5
ppor_9 114 50 5700 n nd nd

DNA quantitation and quality check

Today I determined DNA yield for several samples that I had not yet tested with the Qubit. Here are the results (along with previous Nanodrop results), which can also be found in this spreadsheet:

Sample # Nanodrop DNA conc. (ng/ul) Qubit conc. (ng/ul) Sample volume Total DNA yield (ng)
past_100 7.36 2.28 200 456
past_1 19.06 11.3 200 2260
past_10 36.59 20 200 4000
past_97 7.56 too low 200
past_w11 179.65 35.2 50 1760
past_3 120.01 36.6 50 1830
past_2 223.21 99.4 50 4970
past_w1 437.86 330 50 16500
past_4 198.65 47.2 50 2360
past_w3 331.75 172 50 8600
past_5 193.93 77 50 3850
past_6 212.31 66.2 50 3310
past_7 229.16 27.4 50 1370
past_9 343.89 244 50 12200
past_8 106.39 37.6 50 1880
past_12 209.58 18.2 50 910

 

I also evaluated DNA quality on a gel for several samples. Here is the gel:

gel_022916

As can be seen here, some samples look pretty good, some look ok, and some look like crap. Why such a range? I have no idea, they were all preserved and extracted the same way. Past95 and past19 in particular are particularly bad. These samples should be re-extracted.

DNA extraction

Today I completed the final round of DNA extractions from my Belize Porites samples collected in November using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit. Based on my experience in previous extraction efforts (see previous post), I was generous with tissue quantity. And again, in many cases the tissue was so loosely attached to the skeleton that it was easy to either scoop or scrape off with little skeletal material. As before, I used a single elution volume of 50 ul, which was passed though the column twice. I only evaluated yield this time on the Nanodrop. All samples were in the range of 100 – 400 ng/ul. Based on comparative Qubit results from last time, these Nanodrop values may overestimate yield by approximately double. Also note that most samples had significant absorbance around 230 nm, suggesting the presence of salts, carbohydrates, or phenolic compounds.

Note here that some of the samples in this batch were Porites porites (ppor) as opposed to Porites astreoides (past). Also included in this batch were three samples collected from the top, middle, and bottom of a single P. astreoides colony (w, for within).

Here is the Nanodrop report:

Porites_Dneasy3

poritesdneasy

 

I also ran these samples on a gel. I followed this gel protocol with one modification: I used 1 ul of all samples mixed with 4 ul AE buffer and 1 ul loading dye. There appears to be high molecular weight DNA in all visible samples.

IMG_20160217_175649582

DNA extraction

I have been moving forward with extraction of DNA from P. astreoides samples using the Qiagen DNeasy kit. On Monday/Tuesday I did 16 samples, then another 10 samples (actually 9; one was divided in two). For the first set of 16, I did an overnight lysis (6pm to 9am) with no homogenization. Most of the tissue was very loose and easily scraped off the skeleton or scooped from the bottom of the tube. My initial results (see previous post) suggested that larger quantities of tissue were more successful, so I was fairly generous with tissue quantity. I did two 200 ul elutions into two separate tubes. I measured DNA quantity in the first elution with the Qubit HS assay. Here are the results (again, for the first elution only):

Sample # Qubit conc. (ng/ul) Sample volume Total DNA quantity (ng)
15 5.92 200 1184
16 3.46 200 692
96 6.82 200 1364
19 5.4 200 1080
14 3.92 200 784
82 7.38 200 1476
98 7.92 200 1584
13 10.4 200 2080
12 3.1 200 620
18 5.88 200 1176
99 5.16 200 1032
17 10 200 2000
95 5.88 200 1176
11 10.4 200 2080
80 10.8 200 2160
81 8.82 200 1764

 

For the next set of 10 samples, I did a few things differently. Again, I tried to be generous with tissue quantity. For a few samples, the tissue volume of the pellet was nearly 100 ul. I ranked the tissue quantity on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest. I also ranked the sample color after the lysis period to get a second qualitative measure of tissue quantity. I homogenized three of the most dense samples lightly with a plastic pestle (86, 90, 83). The lysis period was from 4:30pm to 9:30am. The lysis did not appear complete, so for the last hour of lysis, I added an additional 180 ul of buffer and 40 ul of proteinase K, and disrupted a few of the most dense samples by pipetting. Sam suggested elution with 50 ul instead of 200 ul, and reusing the original eluate for the second elution. I quantitated the DNA with both Nanodrop and Qubit for comparison. Here are the results:

Past_Dneasy2

Sample # Tissue quantity rank (1 = low) Color rank after lysis Nanodrop DNA conc. (ng/ul) Qubit conc. (ng/ul) Sample volume Total DNA quantity (ng)
87 1 1 166.2 45.6 50 2280
89 2 3 122.9 48 50 2400
85 3 4 313.9 143 50 7150
88b 4 2 214.2 121 50 6050
84 5 6 398.1 188 50 9400
91 6 9 329.7 194 50 9700
88a 7 5 292.6 182 50 9100
86 8 7 359.4 234 50 11700
90 9 8 312.3 218 50 10900
83 10 10 377.7 194 50 9700

The Nanodrop quantity estimates were approximately double those from the Qubit. Qubit values were used for estimation of total yield in the last column. Also, from my qualitative estimate of tissue quantity, it appears that higher quantities tended to be better. If you plot the data, there appears to be an asymptote, so I may have reached optimum tissue quantities.

Untitled

 

DNA extraction trial run #2

Yesterday I did a second trial run with the same P. astreoides samples used in the previous run (sample #s 1, 10, 97, 100; see previous post). This time, however, I used the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit. I used approximately the same amount of tissue used in the previous runs, perhaps slightly more. All tissue samples were largely detached (sloughed off) from the skeleton as before, so for most samples I simply scooped loose tissue from the tubes. I did not do any homogenization. However, I did rinse the tissues three times in PBS, compared to only once in the previous run with the EZNA Mollusc Kit. Another thing that I did differently was a shorter 2.5 hr lysis at 56ºC, instead of a 24 hr lysis at 37ºC with the mollusc kit. I chose this lysis duration mainly out of convenience since I was unable to come back the following day. I also vortexed the samples periodically during lysis. At the end of the lysis period, I noted the following with respect to the appearance of the samples: samples 1 and 10, no visible skeletal material, some bits of intact tissue; sample 97, some skeletal material present, very little visible tissue; sample 100, no skeletal material, many small bits of tissue. So from these I estimated that the only sample that was fully lysed was #97. However, I think this was also the sample with the least amount of tissue.

The good news is that this time there was significantly more DNA in most of the samples. Here is the nanodrop report (the second half of the samples with a -2 are the second elution).

Past_DNeasy_020416

 

My sense is that sample 97 had low DNA concentration due to a low tissue quantity. As for sample 100, I think there may have been too much tissue and incomplete lysis. But I would not say there was huge variance in the amount of sample used, so the large differences in DNA quantity are a bit perplexing. In any case, the results are encouraging and I will move forward with DNeasy for all samples, perhaps with a longer lysis duration and some light homogenization.

DNA extraction trial run

I wanted to try out the Omega EZNA Mollusc DNA extraction kit on some of my samples, so I processed four of them with this method. I used Porites astreoides samples 1, 10, 97, and 100. I collected a small amount of tissue that had sloughed off the skeleton from the samples preserved in salt saturated DMSO at room temp. The tissue was fairly loose, so opted not to homogenize it in any way. For the proteinase K incubation, I opted for 37º overnight. Otherwise, I performed the extraction as per the manufacturer’s instructions, without any of the optional steps.

The results were somewhat disappointing; only one sample had a concentration above 5 ng/ul. Sample #10 had a concentration of 9.3 ng/ul; the rest were below 4 ng/ul. Next time I will try more starting material, and do some homogenization. The samples are stored at -20ºC.

Coral homogenates – P. astreoides

On Friday 12/4 I homogenized 6 P. astreoides samples that were part of a short-term (5 day) transplant experiment to look at gene expression. Collection and transplant details of these samples can be found in the previous post. These samples (Past 92, 93, and 94 from 11/20/15 and 11/25/15) are the only ones from my November Belize trip that were preserved in RNAlater. I prioritized dealing with these specimens since RNA preserved in RNAlater has a limited lifetime if not frozen. Half of these samples (the ones collected on 11/20) spent half their time at 4C, but then were kept at room temperature for about a week with the ones collected on 11/25. For each sample, I scraped the top tissue layer off the coral skeleton with a box cutter in a mortar chilled with dry ice, then ground the samples in the mortar with a pestle. I placed the homogenate in 15ml tubes kept chilled on dry ice. I put all samples in the -80°C freezer.