DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work

Effective identification of species using short DNA fragments (DNA barcoding and DNA metabarcoding) requires reliable sequence reference libraries of known taxa. Both taxonomically comprehensive coverage and content quality are important for sufficient accuracy. For aquatic ecosystems in Europe, reliable barcode reference libraries are particularly important if molecular identification tools are to be implemented in biomonitoring and reports in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). We analysed gaps in the two most important reference databases, Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) and NCBI GenBank, with a focus on the taxa most frequently used in WFD and MSFD. Our analyses show that coverage varies strongly among taxonomic groups, and among geographic regions. In general, groups that were actively targeted in barcode projects (e.g. fish, true bugs, caddisflies and vascular plants) are well represented in the barcode libraries, while others have fewer records (e.g. marine molluscs, ascidians, and freshwater diatoms). We also found that species monitored in several countries often are represented by barcodes in reference libraries, while species monitored in a single country frequently lack sequence records. A large proportion of species (up to 50%) in several taxonomic groups are only represented by private data in BOLD. Our results have implications for the future strategy to fill existing gaps in barcode libraries, especially if DNA metabarcoding is to be used in the monitoring of European aquatic biota under the WFD and MSFD. For example, missing species relevant to monitoring in multiple countries should be prioritized. We also discuss why a strategy for quality control and quality assurance of barcode reference libraries is needed and recommend future steps to ensure full utilization of metabarcoding in aquatic biomonitoring.

[1]  P. Soares,et al.  Assembling and auditing a comprehensive DNA barcode reference library for European marine fishes. , 2016, Journal of Fish Biology.

[2]  M. Geiger,et al.  Molecular diversity of Germany's freshwater fishes and lampreys assessed by DNA barcoding , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[3]  G. Carvalho,et al.  Investigating the molecular systematic relationships amongst selected Plesionika (Decapoda: Pandalidae) from the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea , 2013 .

[4]  F. Rimet,et al.  Next‐generation sequencing to inventory taxonomic diversity in eukaryotic communities: a test for freshwater diatoms , 2013, Molecular ecology resources.

[5]  R. Dirzo,et al.  Patterns, Causes, and Consequences of Anthropocene Defaunation , 2016 .

[6]  T. Lyrholm,et al.  Improving environmental and biodiversity monitoring in the Baltic Sea using DNA barcoding of Chironomidae (Diptera) , 2012, Molecular ecology resources.

[7]  P. Hebert,et al.  bold: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org) , 2007, Molecular ecology notes.

[8]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Identifying North American freshwater invertebrates using DNA barcodes: are existing COI sequence libraries fit for purpose? , 2018, Freshwater Science.

[9]  I. Muxika,et al.  Adapting metabarcoding-based benthic biomonitoring into routine marine ecological status assessment networks , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[10]  Javier R. Viguri,et al.  DNAqua-Net: Developing new genetic tools for bioassessment and monitoring of aquatic ecosystems in Europe , 2016 .

[11]  C. D. Cook Water Plants of the World: A Manual for the Identification of the Genera of Freshwater Macrophytes , 1974 .

[12]  Sabrina Lo Brutto,et al.  DNA Barcoding for Species Assignment: The Case of Mediterranean Marine Fishes , 2014, PloS one.

[13]  E. Keskin,et al.  DNA barcoding commercially important fish species of Turkey , 2013, Molecular ecology resources.

[14]  Anne Courrat,et al.  Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive , 2012 .

[15]  D. Mann,et al.  The potential of High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS) of natural samples as a source of primary taxonomic information for reference libraries of diatom barcodes , 2018 .

[16]  S. Jacquet,et al.  Metabarcoding of lake benthic diatoms: from structure assemblages to ecological assessment , 2018, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  L. Ector,et al.  DNA metabarcoding and microscopic analyses of sea turtles biofilms: Complementary to understand turtle behavior , 2018, PloS one.

[18]  John Murphy,et al.  River Invertebrate Classification Tool , 2008 .

[19]  Angel Borja,et al.  An approach to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European Water Framework Directive. , 2007, Marine pollution bulletin.

[20]  M. Pfenninger,et al.  Ecological and morphological differentiation among cryptic evolutionary lineages in freshwater limpets of the nominal form‐group Ancylus fluviatilis (O.F. Müller, 1774) , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[21]  C. Eizaguirre,et al.  Anthropogenic hybridization between endangered migratory and commercially harvested stationary whitefish taxa (Coregonus spp.) , 2014, Evolutionary applications.

[22]  Yingkui Liu,et al.  Extensive cryptic diversity in the cosmopolitan sludge worm Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (Clitellata, Naididae) , 2017, Organisms Diversity & Evolution.

[23]  M. Cantonati,et al.  Springs of the Alps – Sensitive Ecosystems to Environmental Change: From Biodiversity Assessments to Long-term Studies , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[24]  R. Milanowski,et al.  Searching for cryptic species in Erpobdella octoculata (L.) (Hirudinea: Clitellata): discordance between the results of genetic analysis and cross-breeding experiments , 2011 .

[25]  S. Ratnasingham,et al.  BOLD : The Barcode of Life Data System (www.barcodinglife.org) , 2007 .

[26]  M. Kondoh,et al.  MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species , 2015, Royal Society Open Science.

[27]  H. Schubert,et al.  Molecular evaluation of the validity of the morphological characters of three Swedish Chara sections: Chara, Grovesia, and Desvauxia (Charales, Charophyceae) , 2016 .

[28]  D. Steinke,et al.  DNA barcoding of shared fish species from the North Atlantic and Australasia: minimal divergence for most taxa, but Zeus faber and Lepidopus caudatus each probably constitute two species , 2008 .

[29]  Á. Borja,et al.  Environmental Status Assessment Using DNA Metabarcoding: Towards a Genetics Based Marine Biotic Index (gAMBI) , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  Michio Kondoh,et al.  Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-throughput sequencing , 2017, bioRxiv.

[31]  T. Wilke,et al.  Rapid evolution of an ancient lake species flock: Freshwater limpets (Gastropoda: Ancylidae) in the Balkan Lake Ohrid , 2006 .

[32]  E. Barbier Marine ecosystem services , 2017, Current Biology.

[33]  Regine Jahn,et al.  Taxonomic Reference Libraries for Environmental Barcoding: A Best Practice Example from Diatom Research , 2014, PloS one.

[34]  A. Savić,et al.  Six species in one: evidence of cryptic speciation in the Hygrobates fluviatilis complex (Acariformes, Hydrachnidia, Hygrobatidae) , 2017, Systematic and Applied Acarology.

[35]  C. Erséus,et al.  Integrative taxonomy of the freshwater worm Rhyacodrilus falciformis s.l. (Clitellata: Naididae), with the description of a new species , 2013 .

[36]  Aglaia Antoniou,et al.  Revision of the freshwater genus Atyaephyra (Crustacea, Decapoda, Atyidae) based on morphological and molecular data , 2012, ZooKeys.

[37]  J. Stevenson,et al.  Ecological assessments with algae: a review and synthesis , 2014, Journal of phycology.

[38]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. , 1989, Environmental pollution.

[39]  Angel Borja,et al.  Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: what is it and how do we know when we have attained it? , 2013, Marine pollution bulletin.

[40]  Mark Blaxter,et al.  Molecular barcodes for soil nematode identification , 2002, Molecular ecology.

[41]  M. Lago,et al.  Protecting aquatic biodiversity in Europe: How much do EU environmental policies support ecosystem-based management? , 2017, Ambio.

[42]  M. Mioduchowska,et al.  Instances of erroneous DNA barcoding of metazoan invertebrates: Are universal cox1 gene primers too “universal”? , 2018, PloS one.

[43]  Frédéric Rimet,et al.  Recent views on river pollution and diatoms , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[44]  Torsten Berg,et al.  Current status of macroinvertebrate methods used for assessing the quality of European marine waters: implementing the Water Framework Directive , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[45]  A. Lillebø,et al.  Exploring variability in environmental impact risk from human activities across aquatic ecosystems. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[46]  Ralph T. Clarke Estimating confidence of European WFD ecological status class and WISER Bioassessment Uncertainty Guidance Software (WISERBUGS) , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[47]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  DNA barcodes from century‐old type specimens using next‐generation sequencing , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[48]  Lawrence M. Page,et al.  Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes , 2008, Copeia.

[49]  Jacob Carstensen,et al.  Confidence in ecological indicators: A framework for quantifying uncertainty components from monitoring data , 2016 .

[50]  A. Nygren Cryptic polychaete diversity: a review , 2014 .

[51]  C. Erséus,et al.  Integrative species delimitation and phylogeny of the branchiate worm Branchiodrilus (Clitellata, Naididae) , 2018, Zoologica Scripta.

[52]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[53]  Hermann Neumann,et al.  Identification of North Sea molluscs with DNA barcoding , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[54]  Naota Hanasaki,et al.  Water Futures and Solution - Fast Track Initiative (Final Report) , 2016 .

[55]  Lydia King,et al.  Customs, habits, and traditions: the role of nonscientific factors in the development of ecological assessment methods , 2015 .

[56]  C. Erséus,et al.  Cryptic diversity in supposedly species-poor genera of Enchytraeidae (Annelida: Clitellata) , 2018 .

[57]  Henrik Nygård,et al.  Proficiency Test 04/2016 - Taxonomic identification of boreal freshwater lotic, lentic, profundal and North-Eastern Baltic benthic macroinvertebrates , 2017 .

[58]  F. Leese,et al.  A DNA barcode library for Germany′s mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[59]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  From writing to reading the encyclopedia of life , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[60]  T. Ekrem,et al.  Restricted variation in plant barcoding markers limits identification in closely related bryophyte species , 2013, Molecular ecology resources.

[61]  P. Stolpman,et al.  Environmental Protection Agency , 2020, The Grants Register 2022.

[62]  Pieter Vanormelingen,et al.  An Inordinate Fondness? The Number, Distributions, and Origins of Diatom Species , 2013, The Journal of eukaryotic microbiology.

[63]  Damon P. Little,et al.  Choosing and Using a Plant DNA Barcode , 2011, PloS one.

[64]  J. Lobo,et al.  Starting a DNA barcode reference library for shallow water polychaetes from the southern European Atlantic coast , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[65]  P. Hebert,et al.  Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[66]  T. Porter,et al.  Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing , 2018, PloS one.

[67]  R. Samuel,et al.  Universal multiplexable matK primers for DNA barcoding of angiosperms1 , 2016, Applications in Plant Sciences.

[68]  O. Seehausen,et al.  Rapid parallel adaptive radiations from a single hybridogenic ancestral population , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[69]  J. Hoffman,et al.  Potential for DNA-based identification of Great Lakes fauna: match and mismatch between taxa inventories and DNA barcode libraries , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[70]  M. Brändle,et al.  Patterns of freshwater biodiversity in Europe: lessons from the spring snail genus Bythinella , 2011 .

[71]  Angelo Tursi,et al.  Improving the Conservation of Mediterranean Chondrichthyans: The ELASMOMED DNA Barcode Reference Library , 2017, PloS one.

[72]  S. Jacquet,et al.  Avoiding quantification bias in metabarcoding: Application of a cell biovolume correction factor in diatom molecular biomonitoring , 2017 .

[73]  Peter Haase,et al.  First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results , 2010, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[74]  D. Steinke,et al.  The Application of DNA Barcodes for the Identification of Marine Crustaceans from the North Sea and Adjacent Regions , 2015, PloS one.

[75]  M. Siddall,et al.  Poly-paraphyly of Hirudinidae: many lineages of medicinal leeches , 2009, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[76]  Mark John Costello Developing Species Information Systems: The European Register of Marine Species (ERMS) , 2000 .

[77]  J. Lobo,et al.  With a little help from DNA barcoding: investigating the diversity of Gastropoda from the Portuguese coast , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[78]  W. John Kress,et al.  A DNA barcode for land plants , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[79]  S. Ratnasingham,et al.  Biological identifications through DNA barcodes: the case of the Crustacea , 2007 .

[80]  F. Rimet,et al.  Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: Scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island, France) , 2017 .

[81]  O. Seehausen,et al.  Eutrophication causes speciation reversal in whitefish adaptive radiations , 2012, Nature.

[82]  R. Gerecke,et al.  Towards a long-term monitoring of Central European water mite faunas (Acari: Hydrachnidia and Halacaridae) – considerations on the background of data from 1900 to 2000 , 2005 .

[83]  N. Puillandre,et al.  Bad taxonomy can kill: molecular reevaluation of Unio mancus Lamarck, 1819 (Bivalvia: Unionidae) and its accepted subspecies , 2012 .

[84]  Michael Balke,et al.  The Effect of Geographical Scale of Sampling on DNA Barcoding , 2012, Systematic biology.

[85]  J. Pons,et al.  A mega-cryptic species complex hidden among one of the most common annelids in the North East Atlantic , 2018, PloS one.

[86]  Kristian Meissner,et al.  Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. , 2018, Water research.

[87]  G. Carvalho,et al.  Multigene Molecular Systematics Confirm Species Status of Morphologically Convergent Pagurus Hermit Crabs , 2011, PloS one.

[88]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[89]  Christian K. Feld,et al.  Cook book for the development of a Multimetric Index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives , 2006 .

[90]  F. Leese,et al.  Deciphering the origin of mito‐nuclear discordance in two sibling caddisfly species , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[91]  D. Steinke,et al.  A Ranking System for Reference Libraries of DNA Barcodes: Application to Marine Fish Species from Portugal , 2012, PloS one.

[92]  Á. Borja,et al.  The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[93]  G. Carvalho,et al.  A reliable DNA barcode reference library for the identification of the North European shelf fish fauna , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[94]  A. Weigand,et al.  Genome‐wide single‐nucleotide polymorphism data reveal cryptic species within cryptic freshwater snail species—The case of the Ancylus fluviatilis species complex , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[95]  H. Segers,et al.  The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment: an overview of the results , 2008, Hydrobiologia.

[96]  Frédéric Rimet,et al.  Freshwater biomonitoring in the Information Age , 2017 .

[97]  Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković,et al.  Osteological description of Zingel balcanicus (Teleostei: Percidae) , 2014, Biologia.

[98]  M. Glemarec,et al.  Using biotic indices to estimate macrobenthic community perturbations in the Bay of Brest , 1997 .

[99]  M. Grabowski,et al.  The legacy of a vanished sea: a high level of diversification within a European freshwater amphipod species complex driven by 15 My of Paratethys regression , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[100]  Robert M. May,et al.  How Many Species Are There on Earth? , 1988, Science.

[101]  John D. Hunter,et al.  Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[102]  D. Trevisan,et al.  Development and implementation of eco-genomic tools for aquatic ecosystem biomonitoring: the SYNAQUA French-Swiss program , 2018, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[103]  R. Naiman,et al.  Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[104]  M. Grabowski,et al.  Description and post-glacial demography of Gammarus jazdzewskii sp. nov. (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Central Europe , 2018, Systematics and Biodiversity.

[105]  K. Katoh,et al.  MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability , 2013, Molecular biology and evolution.

[106]  S. Schneider,et al.  DNA barcoding the genus Chara: molecular evidence recovers fewer taxa than the classical morphological approach , 2015, Journal of phycology.

[107]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  Biological identifications through DNA barcodes , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[108]  P. Dillon,et al.  The effect of excluding diatom taxa and reducing taxonomic resolution on multivariate analyses and stream bioassessment , 2009 .

[109]  Belma Kalamujić Stroil,et al.  Why We Need Sustainable Networks Bridging Countries, Disciplines, Cultures and Generations for Aquatic Biomonitoring 2.0: A Perspective Derived From the DNAqua-Net COST Action , 2018 .

[110]  Edward B. Barbier,et al.  Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services , 2012, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[111]  F. Rimet,et al.  Do we similarly assess diversity with microscopy and high-throughput sequencing? Case of microalgae in lakes , 2018, Organisms Diversity & Evolution.

[112]  M. Kottelat,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity in the Mediterranean Biodiversity Hotspot affects barcoding accuracy of its freshwater fishes , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[113]  Ángel Borja,et al.  A Marine Biotic Index to Establish the Ecological Quality of Soft-Bottom Benthos Within European Estuarine and Coastal Environments , 2000 .

[114]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Spatial Representativeness of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Signal for Fish Biodiversity Assessment in a Natural Freshwater System , 2016, PloS one.

[115]  Dennis A. Benson,et al.  GenBank , 2012, Nucleic acids research.

[116]  M. Siddall,et al.  Diverse molecular data demonstrate that commercially available medicinal leeches are not Hirudo medicinalis , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[117]  Gernot Glöckner,et al.  Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[118]  C. Mora,et al.  How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? , 2011, PLoS biology.

[119]  J. Lobo,et al.  Contrasting morphological and DNA barcode-suggested species boundaries among shallow-water amphipod fauna from the southern European Atlantic coast. , 2017, Genome.

[120]  E. Willassen,et al.  A comprehensive DNA sequence library is essential for identification with DNA barcodes. , 2007, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[121]  Trabucco Benedetta,et al.  Technical guidance on monitoring for the Marine Stategy Framework Directive , 2014 .

[122]  David K. Kreamer,et al.  The Past, Present, and Future of Water Conflict and International Security , 2012 .

[123]  Julian Evans,et al.  Testing the applicability of DNA barcoding for Mediterranean species of top-shells (Gastropoda, Trochidae, Gibbula s.l.) , 2013 .

[124]  Paul Nichols,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long‐term data from established survey methods , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[125]  Philippe Chaumeil,et al.  R-Syst::diatom: an open-access and curated barcode database for diatoms and freshwater monitoring , 2016, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[126]  Susan J. Nichols,et al.  A DNA barcode database of Australia’s freshwater macroinvertebrate fauna , 2017 .

[127]  G. Carvalho,et al.  Systematic and Evolutionary Insights Derived from mtDNA COI Barcode Diversity in the Decapoda (Crustacea: Malacostraca) , 2011, PloS one.