Divergence thresholds and divergent biodiversity estimates: can metabarcoding reliably describe zooplankton communities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA metabarcoding is a promising method for describing communities and estimating biodiversity. This approach uses high-throughput sequencing of targeted markers to identify species in a complex sample. By convention, sequences are clustered at a predefined sequence divergence threshold (often 3%) into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that serve as a proxy for species. However, variable levels of interspecific marker variation across taxonomic groups make clustering sequences from a phylogenetically diverse dataset into OTUs at a uniform threshold problematic. In this study, we use mock zooplankton communities to evaluate the accuracy of species richness estimates when following conventional protocols to cluster hypervariable sequences of the V4 region of the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene (18S) into OTUs. By including individually tagged single specimens and "populations" of various species in our communities, we examine the impact of intra- and interspecific diversity on OTU clustering. Communities consisting of single individuals per species generated a correspondence of 59-84% between OTU number and species richness at a 3% divergence threshold. However, when multiple individuals per species were included, the correspondence between OTU number and species richness dropped to 31-63%. Our results suggest that intraspecific variation in this marker can often exceed 3%, such that a single species does not always correspond to one OTU. We advocate the need to apply group-specific divergence thresholds when analyzing complex and taxonomically diverse communities, but also encourage the development of additional filtering steps that allow identification of artifactual rRNA gene sequences or pseudogenes that may generate spurious OTUs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".