DNA 代谢条形码、标准条形码和形态学方法在昆虫生物多样性鉴定中的表现

IF 5.5 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Romana Salis, Johanna Sunde, Nikolaj Gubonin, Markus Franzén, Anders Forsman
{"title":"DNA 代谢条形码、标准条形码和形态学方法在昆虫生物多样性鉴定中的表现","authors":"Romana Salis,&nbsp;Johanna Sunde,&nbsp;Nikolaj Gubonin,&nbsp;Markus Franzén,&nbsp;Anders Forsman","doi":"10.1111/1755-0998.14018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For two decades, DNA barcoding and, more recently, DNA metabarcoding have been used for molecular species identification and estimating biodiversity. Despite their growing use, few studies have systematically evaluated these methods. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of barcoding methods in identifying species and estimating biodiversity, by assessing their consistency with traditional morphological identification and evaluating how assignment consistency is influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. We first analysed 951 insect specimens across three taxonomic groups: butterflies, bumblebees and parasitic wasps, using both morphological taxonomy and single-specimen COI DNA barcoding. An additional 25,047 butterfly specimens were identified by COI DNA metabarcoding. Finally, we performed a systematic review of 99 studies to assess average consistency between insect species identity assigned via morphology and COI barcoding and to examine the distribution of research effort. Species assignment consistency was influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. An average assignment consistency of 49% was found across taxonomic groups, with parasitic wasps displaying lower consistency due to taxonomic impediment. The number of missing matches doubled with a 100% sequence similarity threshold and COI intraspecific variation increased with geographic distance. Metabarcoding results aligned well with morphological biodiversity estimates and a strong positive correlation between sequence reads and species abundance was found. The systematic review revealed an 89% average consistency and also indicated taxonomic and geographic biases in research effort. Together, our findings demonstrate that while problems persist, barcoding approaches offer robust alternatives to traditional taxonomy for biodiversity assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":211,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Ecology Resources","volume":"24 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1755-0998.14018","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of DNA metabarcoding, standard barcoding and morphological approaches in the identification of insect biodiversity\",\"authors\":\"Romana Salis,&nbsp;Johanna Sunde,&nbsp;Nikolaj Gubonin,&nbsp;Markus Franzén,&nbsp;Anders Forsman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1755-0998.14018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>For two decades, DNA barcoding and, more recently, DNA metabarcoding have been used for molecular species identification and estimating biodiversity. Despite their growing use, few studies have systematically evaluated these methods. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of barcoding methods in identifying species and estimating biodiversity, by assessing their consistency with traditional morphological identification and evaluating how assignment consistency is influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. We first analysed 951 insect specimens across three taxonomic groups: butterflies, bumblebees and parasitic wasps, using both morphological taxonomy and single-specimen COI DNA barcoding. An additional 25,047 butterfly specimens were identified by COI DNA metabarcoding. Finally, we performed a systematic review of 99 studies to assess average consistency between insect species identity assigned via morphology and COI barcoding and to examine the distribution of research effort. Species assignment consistency was influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. An average assignment consistency of 49% was found across taxonomic groups, with parasitic wasps displaying lower consistency due to taxonomic impediment. The number of missing matches doubled with a 100% sequence similarity threshold and COI intraspecific variation increased with geographic distance. Metabarcoding results aligned well with morphological biodiversity estimates and a strong positive correlation between sequence reads and species abundance was found. The systematic review revealed an 89% average consistency and also indicated taxonomic and geographic biases in research effort. Together, our findings demonstrate that while problems persist, barcoding approaches offer robust alternatives to traditional taxonomy for biodiversity assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Ecology Resources\",\"volume\":\"24 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1755-0998.14018\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Ecology Resources\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.14018\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Ecology Resources","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.14018","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二十年来,DNA 条形码以及最近的 DNA 元条码一直被用于分子物种鉴定和生物多样性评估。尽管这些方法的应用越来越广泛,但很少有研究对其进行系统评估。本研究旨在评估条形码方法在鉴定物种和估算生物多样性方面的功效,方法是评估条形码方法与传统形态鉴定方法的一致性,并评估分类群、序列相似性阈值和地理距离对鉴定一致性的影响。我们首先使用形态分类法和单个标本 COI DNA 条形码分析了蝴蝶、熊蜂和寄生蜂三个分类群中的 951 个昆虫标本。此外,我们还通过 COI DNA 元条码鉴定了另外 25,047 份蝴蝶标本。最后,我们对 99 项研究进行了系统回顾,以评估通过形态学和 COI 条形码鉴定昆虫物种的平均一致性,并检查研究工作的分布情况。物种分配一致性受分类群、序列相似性阈值和地理距离的影响。发现各分类群的平均分配一致性为 49%,寄生蜂由于分类障碍而显示出较低的一致性。序列相似性阈值为 100%时,缺失匹配的数量增加了一倍,COI 种内变异随地理距离的增加而增加。元条码结果与形态生物多样性估计值吻合良好,并且发现序列读数与物种丰度之间存在很强的正相关性。系统综述显示平均一致性为 89%,同时也表明在研究工作中存在分类和地理偏差。总之,我们的研究结果表明,尽管问题依然存在,但条形码方法为生物多样性评估提供了传统分类学的有力替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Performance of DNA metabarcoding, standard barcoding and morphological approaches in the identification of insect biodiversity

Performance of DNA metabarcoding, standard barcoding and morphological approaches in the identification of insect biodiversity

For two decades, DNA barcoding and, more recently, DNA metabarcoding have been used for molecular species identification and estimating biodiversity. Despite their growing use, few studies have systematically evaluated these methods. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of barcoding methods in identifying species and estimating biodiversity, by assessing their consistency with traditional morphological identification and evaluating how assignment consistency is influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. We first analysed 951 insect specimens across three taxonomic groups: butterflies, bumblebees and parasitic wasps, using both morphological taxonomy and single-specimen COI DNA barcoding. An additional 25,047 butterfly specimens were identified by COI DNA metabarcoding. Finally, we performed a systematic review of 99 studies to assess average consistency between insect species identity assigned via morphology and COI barcoding and to examine the distribution of research effort. Species assignment consistency was influenced by taxonomic group, sequence similarity thresholds and geographic distance. An average assignment consistency of 49% was found across taxonomic groups, with parasitic wasps displaying lower consistency due to taxonomic impediment. The number of missing matches doubled with a 100% sequence similarity threshold and COI intraspecific variation increased with geographic distance. Metabarcoding results aligned well with morphological biodiversity estimates and a strong positive correlation between sequence reads and species abundance was found. The systematic review revealed an 89% average consistency and also indicated taxonomic and geographic biases in research effort. Together, our findings demonstrate that while problems persist, barcoding approaches offer robust alternatives to traditional taxonomy for biodiversity assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Molecular Ecology Resources
Molecular Ecology Resources 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
5.20%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Molecular Ecology Resources promotes the creation of comprehensive resources for the scientific community, encompassing computer programs, statistical and molecular advancements, and a diverse array of molecular tools. Serving as a conduit for disseminating these resources, the journal targets a broad audience of researchers in the fields of evolution, ecology, and conservation. Articles in Molecular Ecology Resources are crafted to support investigations tackling significant questions within these disciplines. In addition to original resource articles, Molecular Ecology Resources features Reviews, Opinions, and Comments relevant to the field. The journal also periodically releases Special Issues focusing on resource development within specific areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信