Standardizing metadata and taxonomic identification in metabarcoding studies

GigaScience

Kessy Abarenkov³  Urmas Kõljalg⁴  Aivi Kaljuvee⁴  R Henrik Nilsson¹  Kelly S. Ramirez²  Leho Tedersoo³ 

[1] Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, 405 30, Sweden;Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Droevendaalsesteeg 10, Wageningen, 6708 PB, The Netherlands;Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, Tartu, 50411, Estonia;Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, 14a Ravila, Tartu, 50411, Estonia

关键词: Interactive database;    Internal transcribed spacer (ITS);    Digital object identifiers (DOI);    Species hypotheses;    Environmental metadata;    Data storage;    Next-generation sequencing;    High-throughput sequencing (HTS);   

Others  :  1221688
DOI  :  10.1186/s13742-015-0074-5

 received in 2015-03-23, accepted in 2015-07-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

High-throughput sequencing-based metabarcoding studies produce vast amounts of ecological data, but a lack of consensus on standardization of metadata and how to refer to the species recovered severely hampers reanalysis and comparisons among studies. Here we propose an automated workflow covering data submission, compression, storage and public access to allow easy data retrieval and inter-study communication. Such standardized and readily accessible datasets facilitate data management, taxonomic comparisons and compilation of global metastudies.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Tedersoo et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Orgiazzi A, Dunbar MB, Panagos P, de Groot GA, Lemanceau P. Soil biodiversity and DNA barcodes: opportunities and challenges. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015; 80:244-250.
• [2]Pante E, Schoelinck C, Puillandre N. From integrative taxonomy to species description: one step beyond. Syst Biol. 2014.
• [3]Quince C, Lanzen A, Curtis TP, Davenport RJ, Hall N, Head IM et al.. Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nat Methods. 2009; 6:639-641.
• [4]Whitlock MC. Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011; 26:61-65.
• [5]Critescu ME. From barcoding single individuals to metabarcoding biological communities: towards an integrative approach to the study of global biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014; 29:566-571.
• [6]Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Döring M, Robertson V et al.. Darwin Core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PLoS One. 2012; 7: Article ID e29715
• [7]Yilmaz P, Kottmann R, Field D, Knight R, Cole JR, Amaral-Zettler L et al.. Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications. Nat Biotechnol. 2011; 29:415-420.
• [8]Meiser A, Balint M, Schmitt I. Meta‐analysis of deep‐sequenced fungal communities indicates limited taxon sharing between studies and the presence of biogeographic patterns. New Phytol. 2014; 201:623-635.
• [9]Kõljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AFS, Bahram M et al.. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol Ecol. 2013; 22:5271-5277.
• [10]Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the barcode index number (BIN) system. PLoS One. 2013; 8: Article ID e66213
• [11]Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Nilsson RH, Vellak K, Saar I, Veldre V et al.. PlutoF – a web based workbench for ecological and taxonomic research with an online implementation for fungal ITS sequences. Evol Bioinform. 2010; 6:189-196.