Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28430780›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

The importance of standardization for biodiversity comparisons: A case study using autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and metabarcoding to measure cryptic diversity on Mo'orea coral reefs, French Polynesia.

Emma Ransome, Jonathan B Geller, Molly Timmers, Matthieu Leray, Angka Mahardini, Andrianus Sembiring, Allen G Collins, Christopher P Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Emma RansomeDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2327-7654
Jonathan B GellerMoss Landing Marine Labs, Moss Landing, California, United States of America.
Molly TimmersJoint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America.
Matthieu LeraySmithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republica de Panama.
Angka MahardiniIndonesian Biodiversity Research Center, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
Andrianus SembiringIndonesian Biodiversity Research Center, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.
Allen G CollinsDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, United States of America.
Christopher P MeyerDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, United States of America.
National Museum of Natural History · USMoss Landing Marine Laboratories · USNOAA National Marine Fisheries Service · USSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute · PAUdayana University · IDUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advancement of metabarcoding techniques, declining costs of high-throughput sequencing and development of systematic sampling devices, such as autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS), have provided the means to gather a vast amount of diversity data from cryptic marine communities. However, such increased capability could also lead to analytical challenges if the methods used to examine these communities across local and global scales are not standardized. Here we compare and assess the underlying biases of four ARMS field processing methods, preservation media, and current bioinformatic pipelines in evaluating diversity from cytochrome c oxidase I metabarcoding data. Illustrating the ability of ARMS-based metabarcoding to capture a wide spectrum of biodiversity, 3,372 OTUs and twenty-eight phyla, including 17 of 33 marine metazoan phyla, were detected from 3 ARMS (2.607 m2 area) collected on coral reefs in Mo'orea, French Polynesia. Significant differences were found between processing and preservation methods, demonstrating the need to standardize methods for biodiversity comparisons. We recommend the use of a standardized protocol (NOAA method) combined with DMSO preservation of tissues for sessile macroorganisms because it gave a more accurate representation of the underlying communities, is cost effective and removes chemical restrictions associated with sample transportation. We found that sequences identified at ≥ 97% similarity increased more than 7-fold (5.1% to 38.6%) using a geographically local barcode inventory, highlighting the importance of local species inventories. Phylogenetic approaches that assign higher taxonomic ranks accrued phylum identification errors (9.7%) due to sparse taxonomic coverage of the understudied cryptic coral reef community in public databases. However, a ≥ 85% sequence identity cut-off provided more accurate results (0.7% errors) and enabled phylum level identifications of 86.3% of the sequence reads. With over 1600 ARMS deployed, standardizing methods and improving databases are imperative to provide unprecedented global baseline assessments of understudied cryptic marine species in a rapidly changing world.

Indexed as

BiodiversityCoral ReefsEnvironmental MonitoringAnimalsPolynesia

Identifiers

PMID28430780
PMCPMC5400227
OpenAlexW2605790715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.