Maximizing the reliability and the number of species assignments in metabarcoding studies using a curated regional library and a public repository
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity assessments relying on DNA have increased rapidly over the last decade. However, the reliability of taxonomic assignments in metabarcoding studies is variable and affected by the reference databases and the assignment methods used. Species level assignments are usually considered as reliable using regional libraries but unreliable using public repositories. In this study, we aimed to test this assumption for metazoan species detected in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the Northwest Atlantic. We first created a regional library (GSL-rl) by data mining COI barcode sequences from BOLD, and included a reliability ranking system for species assignments. We then estimated 1) the accuracy and precision of the public repository NCBI-nt for species assignments using sequences from the regional library and 2) compared the detection and reliability of species assignments of a metabarcoding dataset using either NCBI-nt or the regional library and popular assignment methods. With NCBI-nt and sequences from the regional library, the BLAST-LCA (least common ancestor) method was the most precise method for species assignments, but the accuracy was higher with the BLAST-TopHit method (>80% over all taxa, between 70% and 90% amongst taxonomic groups). With the metabarcoding dataset, the reliability of species assignments was greater using GSL-rl compared to NCBI-nt. However, we also observed that the total number of reliable species assignments could be maximized using both GSL-rl and NCBI-nt with different optimized assignment methods. The use of a two-step approach for species assignments, i.e., using a regional library and a public repository, could improve the reliability and the number of detected species in metabarcoding studies.
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 | 0.034 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".