The effects of parameter choice on defining molecular operational taxonomic units and resulting ecological analyses of metabarcoding data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of DNA barcoding and high-throughput (next-generation) sequencing (metabarcoding) provides many promises but also serious challenges. Generating a reliable comparable estimate of biodiversity remains a central challenge to the application of the technology. Many approaches have been used to turn millions of sequences into distinct taxonomic units. However, the extent to which these methods impact the outcome of simple ecological analyses is not well understood. Here we performed a simple analysis of dietary overlap by skinks and shrews on Ile Aux Aigrettes, Mauritius. We used a combination of filtering thresholds and clustering algorithms on a COI metabarcoding dataset and demonstrate that all bioinformatics parameters will have interacting effects on molecular operational taxonomic unit (MOTU) recovery rates. These effects generated estimates covering two orders of magnitude. However, the effect on a simple ecological analysis was not large and, despite the wide variation in estimates of niche overlap, the same ecological conclusion was drawn in most cases. We advise that a conservative clustering programme coupled with larger sequence divergences to define a cluster, the removal of singletons, rigorous length filtering, and stringent match criteria for Molecular Identifier tags are preferable to avoid MOTU inflation and that the same parameters be used in all comparative analyses.
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 | 0.068 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".