The Invertebrate Collections

The University Museum of Bergen

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
  • Links
  • Projects
  • Publications
The Invertebrate Collections

Door #21: Barcode taxonomy and the “taxonomic feed-back loop”

Species identification with DNA does not work well if your unknown search sequence is not represented in the DNA library.  When we produce new sequences and check BOLD or Genbank for similar sequences, we sometimes obtain a “hit-list” of completely unrelated taxa. In the picture below, you see, for example, that the BOLD library has sequences of monkeys, flies, mites, and moths that are all about 70 % similar to the crustacean isopod that we tried to identify with the BOLD identification engine.

This and many other examples show that identification with DNA sequence similarity makes no sense if the target organism is not represented in the DNA library. This should also be a lesson for biodiversity studies based on environmental DNA (E-DNA).

When sequences from an organism are not represented in the DNA-library, identification will fail. The search results show that there are many unrelated groups (pictures to right) that are 70 % similar to a crustacean isopod sequence (bottom right) .

It is well known that Genbank (and BOLD) contain many sequences with incorrect species name. This may have different reasons. Some of the problems can be traced to PCR-amplification error. To amplify  a particular gene fragment (the barcode gene) with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) we depend on a so-called primer. The primer is a short sequence (about 20 nucleotides long) that is supposed to find a complementary and relatively conserved stretch of DNA in the target sequence and be the starting point for the construction of a new complimentary DNA string.

http://invertebrate.w.uib.no/files/2018/12/pcr.mp4

Unfortunately, in some cases that does not happen because the priming site in the target organism is very different from the primer. There is apossibility then that the PCR may amplify DNA from another source instead. In animal samples preserved in alcohol there is usually DNA from other organisms as well; it may be remains of food, parasites, or even other larger animals (such as Homo sapiens) that have been in contact with the preserved specimen.

It seems likely that this is this is what happened when researchers thought they had sequenced crabs of the genera Ethusa and Philippidorippe and deposited their sequences in Genbank. They did not realize that their “crab” sequences actually are more or less identical with sequences from spiny lobsters.  Thus the crab phylogeny that was published from these contaminated sequences is clearly problematic. We have also tried to make barcodes for Ethusa species in our projects, but without success, so we suspect that this is the explanation for the error in Genbank.

BOLD search with crab sequences from Genbank shows that the sequences are actually from spiny lobsters.

In other cases we find sequences in the DNA library that are very similar, but that carry different species names.

A collection of very similar sequences from spider crabs collected from South Africa to the Norwegian Sea have been identified as seven different species by different identifiers in different research labs.

It should not come as a surprize that such data will be reflected by the identification engine.

Identification search in BOLD with a spider crab sequence that returns seven possible species names.

The identification engine says: “A species level match could not be made. The queried specimen is likely to be one of the following species.” Cases like the one above clearly call for taxonomic evaluation. Are these sequences actually misidentified by the people that deposited them in the sequence library? Or, are these seven taxa actually representing “good species” that cannot really be discriminated with this barcode marker? Perhaps they diverged relatively recently, but did nor change much in their mitochondrial DNA? Alternatively, are the seven different species names an example of taxonomic oversplitting? It may happen when scientific subcultures in different parts of the world do not have a sufficient global perspective on their regional fauna.  So is it really acceptable to consider Macropodia falcifera  as an endemic species in South Africa, as stated in Wikipedia?

This exemplifies yet another advantage of DNA-barcoding. It can be an eye-opener for taxonomic problems of different sorts that require more studies to be resolved.

Another striking consequence of the DNA barcoding campaign is that many species are much more genetically diverse than expected. Our work in the museum has revealed several cases of species with up to 30 % genetic difference in the mitochondrial barcode sequence. Such observations suggest that we may be dealing with undescribed “cryptic species” and demonstrates how DNA-barcoding has also become an important instrument in species discovery.

The issues I have described in this blog post need to be addressed in a so-called “taxonomic feed-back loop” with emended information to the DNA-barcode library. Only then can we hope to get our understanding of the units of biodiversity right and hope that we can correctly identify them with barcodes.

– Endre

 

PS: Make sure to catch the previous posts on DNA barcoding in our advent calendar as well, you can find them here:

Door #5: DNA-barcoding with BOLD

Door #7: New shipment of tissue samples for barcoding

Door # 8: The DNA-barcode identification machine

This entry was posted in 2018 december calendar, Crustacea, Current projects, DNA barcode, NorBOL and tagged barcoding, taxonomic feedback loop on December 21, 2018 by EW.

About EW

Endre Willassen Professor emeritus -zoology

View all posts by EW →

Post navigation

← Door #20 The Hitchhikers Guide to the Ocean Door #22: recommended reading for the holidays →

Subscribe to receive new blogposts


 

Archives

  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • June 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013

Tags / etiketter

  • #Amphipod thursday
  • #InternationalPolychaeteDay
  • #PolychaeteDay
  • #TangloppeTorsdag
  • AmazingAmphipoda
  • Amphipoda
  • arctic
  • Arctic Station
  • Arne Nygren
  • artsdatabanken
  • artsprosjekt
  • barcoding
  • bold
  • bristle worms
  • Cephalaspidea
  • citizen science
  • cnidaria
  • cruise
  • Disko
  • diving
  • DNA-barcoding
  • Field work
  • ForBio
  • ForBio marine course
  • friday photo
  • Greenland
  • Hydrozoa
  • HYPNO
  • MAREANO
  • marine invertebrates
  • Meetings
  • MIWA
  • Mollusca
  • Mosambique
  • new species
  • NorBOL
  • nudibranch
  • nudibranchs
  • Plankton
  • polychaeta
  • Polychaete diversity in the Norwegian Sea
  • PolyNor
  • taxonomy
  • workshop
  • worms

Recent Posts

  • Hydrozoa course 2022 edition – as told by our MSc student Ana González
  • Legendary colleagues meet once again; in search of Idzi Drzycimskis harpacticoids with help of R/V Hans Brattström
  • Bryozoa-workshop at Espegrend
  • Throwback Thursday; HYPCOP workshop at the museum
  • 2021 in review for Hardbunnsfauna

Categories

  • 2015 december calendar
  • 2016 december calendar
  • 2018 december calendar
  • About
  • AnDeepNor
  • BioSkag
  • cephalopoda
  • Conference
  • Crustacea
  • Current projects
  • DNA barcode
  • Field work
  • ForBio
  • ForBio Marine Course Greenland
  • Guests
  • Hardbunnsfauna
  • HYPCOP
  • HYPNO
  • MAREANO
  • Marine Biodiversity of West Africa
  • Mollusca
  • Mollusca
  • NorAmph
  • NorBOL
  • NorChitons
  • NorHydro
  • Norwegian Taxonomy Initiative
  • Photography
  • Phylogenetics
  • PlanetCopepod
  • polychaeta
  • PolyNor
  • publicity
  • Sea slugs of Southern Norway (SSoSN)
  • Student Projects
  • Uncategorized
  • Workshops

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Proudly powered by WordPress