Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction: studying diversity in an era of ubiquitous genomics
- Part I Next Generation Phylogenetics
- Part II Next Generation Biodiversity Science
- 6 Perspective: Après le déluge: ubiquitous field barcoding should drive 21st century taxonomy
- 7 Perspective: Biodiversity and the (data) beast
- 8 Next generation biodiversity analysis
- 9 Protist systematics, ecology and next generation sequencing
- Part III Next Generation Challenges and Questions
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- Plate section
- References
6 - Perspective: Après le déluge: ubiquitous field barcoding should drive 21st century taxonomy
from Part II - Next Generation Biodiversity Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction: studying diversity in an era of ubiquitous genomics
- Part I Next Generation Phylogenetics
- Part II Next Generation Biodiversity Science
- 6 Perspective: Après le déluge: ubiquitous field barcoding should drive 21st century taxonomy
- 7 Perspective: Biodiversity and the (data) beast
- 8 Next generation biodiversity analysis
- 9 Protist systematics, ecology and next generation sequencing
- Part III Next Generation Challenges and Questions
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Coming soon: the pocket DNA sequencer
Title of Article in Science, October 1998Handheld DNA scanners to ID instantly
Title of Article in National Geographic, January 2005Pocket Sequencer is the answer for musicians wishing to create music whenever the mood strikes …
iZ Corporation website, April 2012Results from Oxford Nanopore's MinION are promising, but fall short of high expectations
Subtitle of news article in Nature, February 2014Prologue
Over the past decade, the various potential practical benefits offered by DNA ‘barcoding’ have been rehearsed ad nauseam, typically with at least modest exaggeration. However, definitions of barcoding, most of which remain rooted in the already passé holy grail of identifying the perfect genic region to characterize (and thereby identify) all life, have failed to keep pace with developments in sequencing technology. Solid-state desktop sequencers are becoming de rigueur in molecular laboratories, and palmtop sequencers are literally undergoing field trials – albeit field trials that are proving disappointingly protracted. Discussion of the implications of the eventual (hopefully imminent) widespread availability of such pocket sequencers has been extraordinarily limited and unidirectional, focusing on the advances that technologists can offer likely professional users, notably field ecologists. But even less consideration has been given to the converse flow of information – specifically, the immense benefits that field biologists could feed into today's ailing global taxonomic enterprise. We have also ignored the likely consequences of the literal deluge of DNA sequences and associated data that will be generated by the overlooked majority of users of such devices who will be ‘non-professionals’, notably students and enthusiastic amateur natural historians.
The ideal palmtop device will not only gather DNA sequences from appropriate barcoding regions but will also record fixed-scale images of the material taken prior to analysis, together with metre-accuracy GPS coordinates. The palmtop will communicate instantly via satellite with major DNA and image databases, providing the field analyst with a hierarchy of likely identifications while s/he is still present at the field locality. If correctly organized and populated with accurate data, both molecular and morphological, core databases such as GenBank could also assess the potential scientific interest of the analysed material, and when appropriate, request immediate acquisition of morphological and/or molecular vouchers for subsequent deposition in major natural history collections.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Next Generation Systematics , pp. 123 - 153Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
, , , et al. (2004). The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies. Quarterly Review of Biology, 79, 161–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2015). MinION nanopore sequencing identifies the position and structure of a bacterial antibiotic resistance island. Nature Biotechnology, 33, 296–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). Evolution and classification of European orchids: insights from molecular and morphological characters. Journal Europäischer Orchideen, 33, 33–119.Google Scholar
(2009). Field-based molecular identification within the next decade?Journal of the Hardy Orchid Society, 6, 31–4.Google Scholar
(2011a). The perils of addressing long-term challenges in a short-term world: making descriptive taxonomy predictive. In Climate Change, Ecology and Systematics, ed. , , and . Systematics Association Special Volume 78. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–95.Google Scholar
(2011b). Glacial progress: do we finally understand the narrow-leaved marsh-orchids?New Journal of Botany, 1, 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2012). Circumscribing species in the European orchid flora: multiple datasets interpreted in the context of speciation mechanisms. Berichte aus den Arbeitskreisen Heimische Orchideen, 29, 160–212.Google Scholar
and (2014). Maximising the accuracy of identification during refereeing: an orchidological perspective. BSBI News, 125, 59–60.Google Scholar
and (2003). Genesis of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in land plants: the present as the key to the past. Systematics and Biodiversity, 1, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2012). Contrast in morphological versus molecular divergence between two closely related Eurasian species of Platanthera (Orchidaceae) suggests recent evolution with a strong allometric component. New Journal of Botany, 2, 110–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2014). Speciation via floral heterochrony and presumed mycorrhizal host-switching of endemic butterfly orchids on the Azorean archipelago. American Journal of Botany 101, 979–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2006). Phylogenetic context, generic affinities and evolutionary origin of the enigmatic Balkan orchid Gymnadenia frivaldii Hampe ex Griseb. Taxon, 55, 107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2013). Systematic revision of Platanthera in the Azorean archipelago: not one but three species, including arguably Europe's rarest orchid. PeerJ 1, doi 10.7717/peerj.218 [86 pp.]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2012). Big hitting collectors make massive and disproportionate contribution to the discovery of plant species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 279, 2269–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2010). Herbaria are a major frontier for species discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 22169–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2012). The effect of geographical scale of sampling on DNA barcoding. Systematic Biology, 61, 851–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2011). A critical appraisal of the meaning and diagnosability of cryptic evolutionary diversity, and its implications for conservation in the face of climate change. In Climate Change, Ecology and Systematics, ed. , , and . Systematics Association Special Volume 78. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 380–438.Google Scholar
, and (2006). Microfabricated bioprocessor for integrated nanoliter-scale Sanger DNA sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 7240–5.Google Scholar
, , , and (2010). DNA barcoding: a six-question tour to improve users’ awareness about the method. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 11, 440–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CBOL – Consortium for the Barcode of Life (Hollingsworth, P. M. and 51 co-authors) (2009). A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 12794–7.
, , , , and (2005). Evidence for pollinator sharing in Mediterranean nectar-mimic orchids: absence of premating barriers?Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1271–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2012). A multi-marker DNA barcoding approach to save time and resources in vegetation surveys. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 169, 518–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005). The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360, 1905–16.Google Scholar
, , and (2012). DNA barcoding methods for land plants. In DNA Barcodes, Methods and Protocols, ed. and . New York, Springer, pp. 223–52.Google Scholar
and (2011). Integrating DNA barcode data and taxonomic practice: determination, discovery, and description. Bioessays, 33, 135–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2011). Next-generation sequencing and systematics: what can a billion base pairs of DNA sequence do for you?Taxon, 60, 1552–66.Google Scholar
, , and (2003). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 270, 313–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2011). Plastid and nuclear DNA marker data support the recognition of four tetraploid marsh-orchids (Dactylorhiza majalis s.l., Orchidaceae) in Britain and Ireland. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 104, 107–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Lords (2008). Systematics and taxonomy: follow-up (S. Sutherland, chair). 5th report of Session 2007–08, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Memorandum HL162. 330 pp.
, , , , and (2015). Improved data analysis for the MinION nanopore sequencer. Nature Methods, 12, 351–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. (2014). Ecology in the age of DNA barcoding, the resource, the promise, and the challenges ahead. Molecular Ecology Resources, 14, 221–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2012). Ultra-barcoding in cacao (Theobroma spp.; Malvaceae) using whole chloroplast and nuclear ribosomal DNA. American Journal of Botany, 99, 320–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (2015). Plant DNA barcoding: from gene to genome. Biological Reviews, 90, 157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2011). DNA barcoding for the discrimination of European yews (Taxus L., Taxaceae) and the discovery of cryptic species. Molecular Ecology, 11, 89–100.Google Scholar
(2012). Oxford Nanopore megaton announcement: Why do you need a machine? Pathogens, Genes and Genomes website. 17 February 2012. http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk
(1997). A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In Species, The Units of Biodiversity, ed. , and . London, Chapman & Hall; pp. 381–421.Google Scholar
(2008). DNA sequences in taxonomy: opportunities and challenges. In The New Taxonomy, ed. . Systematics Association special volume 76.Boca Raton, FL, CRC; pp. 95–127.Google Scholar
(2015). Taxonomy faces speciation: the origin of species or the fading out of species?Biodiversity Journal, 6, 123–38.Google Scholar
and (2009). Genetic diversity and differentiation of allopolyploid Dactylorhiza (Orchidaceae) with particular focus on the D. majalis ssp. traunsteineri/lapponica complex. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97, 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford Nanopore Technologies (2015). Oxford Nanopore Technologies. https://nanporetech.com [accessed 11 May 2015].
, , , et al. (2013). The effect of preservation methods on plant morphology. Taxon, 62, 1259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2010). Stable epigenetic effects impact evolution and adaptation in allopolyploid orchids. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 27, 2465–73. doi, 10.1093/molbev/msq150CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2014). Understanding the spectacular failure of DNA barcoding in willows (Salix): does this result from a trans-specific selective sweep?Molecular Ecology, 23, 4737–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2007). Cryptic animal species are homogeneously distributed among taxa and biogeographical regions. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2002). New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Taxonomy: where are we now?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 359, 729–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Handheld DNA scanners to ID instantly [Hébert project]. National Geographic, 26th January.
(2012). Oxford nanopore doesn't disappoint. OmicsOmics website. 17 February 2012. http://omicsomics.blogspot.co.uk
, , and (2013). Massively parallel DNA sequencing: the new frontier in biogeography. Frontiers in Biogeography, 5, 67–77.Google Scholar
, and (2013). Assessing DNA barcoding as a tool for species identification and data quality control. PLoS One, 8, e57125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (2014). Next-generation DNA barcoding: using next-generation sequencing to enhance and accelerate DNA barcode capture from single specimens. Molecular Ecology Resources, 14, 892–901.Google Scholar
, , , and (2012). Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology, 21, 2045–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2003). A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 70–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2010). Next generation molecular ecology. Molecular Ecology, 19, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2012). An emergent science on the brink of irrelevance: a review of the past 8 years of DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources, 12, 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2013). Ploidy-specific symbiotic interactions, divergence of mycorrhizal fungi between cytotypes of the Gymnadenia conopsea group (Orchidaceae). New Phytologist, 199, 1022–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2011). Remarkable coexistence of multiple cytotypes of the Gymnadenia conopsea aggregate (the fragrant orchid), evidence from flow cytometry. Annals of Botany, 107, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2012). Minority cytotypes in European populations of the Gymnadenia conopsea complex (Orchidaceae) greatly increase intraspecific and intrapopulation diversity. Annals of Botany, 110, 977–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2012). DNA barcoding of recently diverged species: relative performance of matching methods. PLoS One, 7, e30490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2013). Barcoding Nature: Shifting Cultures of Taxonomy in an Age of Biodiversity Loss. Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.Google Scholar
, ed. (2008). The New Taxonomy. Systematics Association special volume 76. Boca Raton, FL, CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by