Literature DB >> 30129071

Why the COI barcode should be the community DNA metabarcode for the metazoa.

Carmelo Andújar1, Paula Arribas1, Douglas W Yu2,3,4, Alfried P Vogler5,6, Brent C Emerson1.   

Abstract

Metabarcoding of complex metazoan communities is increasingly being used to measure biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, revolutionizing our ability to observe patterns and infer processes regarding the origin and conservation of biodiversity. A fundamentally important question is which genetic marker to amplify, and although the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene is one of the more widely used markers in metabarcoding for the Metazoa, doubts have recently been raised about its suitability. We argue that (a) the extensive coverage of reference sequence databases for COI; (b) the variation it presents; (c) the comparative advantages for denoising protein-coding genes; and (d) recent advances in DNA sequencing protocols argue in favour of standardizing for the use of COI for metazoan community samples. We also highlight where research efforts should focus to maximize the utility of metabarcoding.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  barcoding; eDNA; high-throughput sequencing; metabarcoding; next-generation sequencing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30129071     DOI: 10.1111/mec.14844

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  25 in total

1.  Comparing eDNA metabarcoding primers for assessing fish communities in a biodiverse estuary.

Authors:  Girish Kumar; Ashley M Reaume; Emily Farrell; Michelle R Gaither
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Toward global integration of biodiversity big data: a harmonized metabarcode data generation module for terrestrial arthropods.

Authors:  Paula Arribas; Carmelo Andújar; Kristine Bohmann; Jeremy R deWaard; Evan P Economo; Vasco Elbrecht; Stefan Geisen; Marta Goberna; Henrik Krehenwinkel; Vojtech Novotny; Lucie Zinger; Thomas J Creedy; Emmanouil Meramveliotakis; Víctor Noguerales; Isaac Overcast; Hélène Morlon; Anna Papadopoulou; Alfried P Vogler; Brent C Emerson
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 7.658

3.  Species diversity analysis of commercial Mantidis Ootheca samples contaminated by store pests based on DNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Liuwei Xu; Xiaoying Zhang; Hua Guo; Xia Yang; Zhimei Xing; Wenzhi Yang; Jian Zhang; Xiaoxuan Tian
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 4.547

4.  To denoise or to cluster, that is not the question: optimizing pipelines for COI metabarcoding and metaphylogeography.

Authors:  Adrià Antich; Creu Palacin; Owen S Wangensteen; Xavier Turon
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  In silico and empirical evaluation of twelve metabarcoding primer sets for insectivorous diet analyses.

Authors:  Orianne Tournayre; Maxime Leuchtmann; Ondine Filippi-Codaccioni; Marine Trillat; Sylvain Piry; Dominique Pontier; Nathalie Charbonnel; Maxime Galan
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  MARES, a replicable pipeline and curated reference database for marine eukaryote metabarcoding.

Authors:  Vanessa Arranz; William S Pearman; J David Aguirre; Libby Liggins
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 6.444

7.  Validation of COI metabarcoding primers for terrestrial arthropods.

Authors:  Vasco Elbrecht; Thomas W A Braukmann; Natalia V Ivanova; Sean W J Prosser; Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Michael Wright; Evgeny V Zakharov; Paul D N Hebert; Dirk Steinke
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 8.  Prospects and challenges of implementing DNA metabarcoding for high-throughput insect surveillance.

Authors:  Alexander M Piper; Jana Batovska; Noel O I Cogan; John Weiss; John Paul Cunningham; Brendan C Rodoni; Mark J Blacket
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.524

9.  Grab what you can-an evaluation of spatial replication to decrease heterogeneity in sediment eDNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Jon T Hestetun; Anders Lanzén; Thomas G Dahlgren
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  The effects of spatial and temporal replicate sampling on eDNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Kevin K Beentjes; Arjen G C L Speksnijder; Menno Schilthuizen; Marten Hoogeveen; Berry B van der Hoorn
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.