Revision and annotation of DNA barcode records for marine invertebrates: report of the 8th iBOL conference hackathon
Adriana Radulovici, Pedro Emanuel VieiraiD, Sofia DuarteiD, Marcos A. L. TeixeiraiD, Luísa M. S. BorgesiD, Bruce Emerson DeagleiD, Sanna K. MajanevaiD, Niamh E. RedmondiD, Jessica Schultz, Filipe O. CostaiD
Abstract
The accuracy of the identification of unknown specimens using DNA barcoding and metabarcoding relies on reference libraries containing records with reliable taxonomy and sequence quality. A rampant growth in barcode data led to a stringent need for data curation, especially in taxonomically difficult groups such as marine invertebrates. A major effort in curating marine barcode data deposited in the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) has been undertaken during the 8th International Barcode of Life Conference (Trondheim, Norway, 2019). For practical reasons, only major taxonomic groups were reviewed and annotated (crustaceans, echinoderms, molluscs, and polychaetes). The congruence of Linnean names with Barcode Index Numbers (BINs) was investigated, and the records deemed uncertain were annotated with four tags: a) MIS-ID (misidentified, mislabeled or contaminated records), b) AMBIG (ambiguous records unresolved with the current data), c) COMPLEX (species occurring in multiple BINs), and d) SHARE (barcodes shared between species). A total of 83,712 specimen records corresponding to 7,576 species were reviewed and 39% of the species were tagged (7% MIS-ID, 17% AMBIG, 14% COMPLEX, and 1% SHARE). High percentages (>50%) of AMBIG tags were recorded in gastropods, whereas COMPLEX tags dominated in crustaceans and polychaetes. This high proportion of tagged species reflects either flaws in the barcoding workflow (e.g., misidentification, cross -contamination) or taxonomic difficulties (e.g., synonyms, undescribed species). Although data curation is crucial for barcode applications, such manual efforts of reviewing large datasets are not sustainable and the implementation of automated solutions to the furthest possible extent is hi ghly desirable.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 40
- FWCI
- 4.05
- Field percentile
- top 5%
- Assay
- Research Focus
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A reference library for the identification of Canadian invertebrates: 1.5 million DNA barcodes, voucher specimens, and genomic samples
J. R. deWaard, S. Ratnasingham, … P. D. N. Hebert·bioRxiv·Jul 14, 2019
- Are marine biodiversity hotspots still blackspots for barcoding?
F. Mugnai, E. Meglecz, … F. Costantini·bioRxiv·Jul 12, 2021
- DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work
H. Weigand, A. J. Beermann, … T. Ekrem·Science of The Total EnvironmentPeer-reviewed·Aug 1, 2019
- DNA barcoding revealed a high percentage of mislabeling in commercial fish products: the first empirical survey in South Texas
Rita B. Tommasi, Sanjana M. Lamia, … Hashimul Ehsan·bioRxiv·Aug 29, 2023
- What's left in the tank? Identification of non-ascribed aquarium's coral collections with DNA barcodes as part of an integrated diagnostic approach
Luigi Colin, Daniel Abed‐Navandi, … Chris Yesson·Conservation Genetics ResourcesPeer-reviewed·Jan 11, 2022
- Forensics and DNA Barcodes - Do Identification Errors Arise in the Lab or in the Sequence Libraries?
Mikko Pentinsaari, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, … Paul D. N. Hebert·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Apr 16, 2020