Life barcoded by DNA barcodes

Abstract

The modern concept of DNA-based barcoding for cataloguing biodiversity was proposed in 2003 by first adopting an approximately 600 bp fragment of the mitochondrial COI gene to compare via nucleotide alignments with known sequences from specimens previously identified by taxonomists. Other standardized regions meeting barcoding criteria then are also evolving as DNA barcodes for fast, reliable and inexpensive assessment of species composition across all forms of life, including animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms. Consequently, global DNA barcoding campaigns have resulted in the formation of many online workbenches and databases, such as BOLD system, as barcode references, and facilitated the development of mini-barcodes and metabarcoding strategies as important extensions of barcode techniques. Here we intend to give an overview of the characteristics and features of these barcode markers and major reference libraries existing for barcoding the planet’s life, as well as to address the limitations and opportunities of DNA barcodes to an increasingly broader community of science and society.

DNA barcodes of the vascular flora of the Altai Mountain Country: type material of the Herbarium ALTB

“…General open access to the original data of the study will allow identification of taxa and trace the dynamics of their area more reasonably and accurately. In the absence of other evidence, DNA barcoding creates hypotheses regarding new species rather than outright discovering them (Taylor, Harris, 2012;Guo et al, 2022). But it should be noted that barcoding must supplement morphological data for species description (Guo et al, 2022).…”

“…In the absence of other evidence, DNA barcoding creates hypotheses regarding new species rather than outright discovering them (Taylor, Harris, 2012;Guo et al, 2022). But it should be noted that barcoding must supplement morphological data for species description (Guo et al, 2022). In the applied aspect, the identification of plant objects directly affects the solution of social problems of environmental safety, is included in the food and health agenda, and is no less significant for nature protection activities in the transboundary territory of Russia, Kazakhstan, China, and Mongolia.…”

“…In global DNA barcoding, there is unresolved question regarding the approved set of markers specifically for plants (Shneyer, Rodionov, 2019). So far, the nuclear-encoded ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region and the chloroplast intergenic spacer trnH-psbA have emerged as candidates for barcoding plants, followed by others including coding sequences from plastid genes rbcL and matK, two loci now the most commonly used for plants (Kress, Erickson, 2007;Yao et al, 2010;Loera-Sánchez et al, 2020;Guo et al, 2022). These markers can be used separately or in combination with other markers or spacers.…”

“…These markers can be used separately or in combination with other markers or spacers. Since a standard plant barcode has been complicated by the trade-off that arises between the high variability of sequences and high conservation of primers, it is then recommended to simultaneously utilize more than one marker as a compromise that best matches the barcoding criteria (Lahaye et al, 2008;Shneyer, Rodionov, 2019;Guo et al, 2022).…”

Direct PCR meets high-throughput sequencing - metabarcoding of aquatic insect communities without DNA purification

“…A key global challenge in the 21st century is the attempt to reverse the ongoing global biodiversity decline and to mitigate its consequences. DNA metabarcoding for large-scale monitoring of species rich and abundant groups, such as insects, is labour-and costintensive, but has become more and more achievable since its development in the early 2000s (Gostel and Kress 2022;Guo et al 2022). One typical processing step during the preparation of insect metabarcoding samples is the extraction of DNA from homogenized bulk samples (Yu et al 2012;Creer et al 2016).…”