Print
Metadata standards and practical guidelines for specimen and DNA curation when building barcode reference libraries for aquatic life
expand article infoFrédéric Rimet, Eva Aylagas§, Angel Borja|, Agnès Bouchez#, Alexis Canino#, Christian Chauvin#, Teofana Chonova#, Fedor Ciampor Jr¤, Filipe О. Costa«, Benoit J. D. Ferrari», Romain Gastineau˄, Chloé Goulon#, Muriel Gugger˅, Maria Holzmann¦, Regine Jahnˀ, Maria Kahlertˁ, Wolf-Henning Kusberˀ, Christophe Laplace-Treyture#, Florian Leese, Frederik Leliaert, David G. Mann, Frédéric Marchand, Vona Méléder, Jan Pawlowski, Serena Rasconi#, Sinziana Rivera#, Rodolphe Rougerie, Magali Schweizer, Rosa Trobajo, Valentin Vasselon, Régis Vivien», Alexander Weigand, Andrzej Witkowski˄, Jonas Zimmermannˀ, Torbjørn Ekrem
‡ INRAE, Thonon, France
§ King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
| AZTI, Pasaia, Spain
¶ King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
# INRAE, Thonon les Bains, France
¤ Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
« University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
» Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Lausanne, Switzerland
˄ University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
˅ Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
¦ University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
ˀ Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
ˁ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
₵ University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
ℓ Meise Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium
₰ Institute for Food and Agricultural Research and Technology, Sant Carles de la Rápita, Spain
₱ Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
₳ INRAE, Rennes, France
₴ University of Nantes, Nantes, France
₣ University of Geneva, Geneve, Switzerland
₮ ID-Gene ecodiagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland
₦ Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sopot, Poland
₭ Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
₲ University of Angers, Angers, France
‽ SCIMABIO Interface, Thonon-les-Bains, France
₩ Musée national d’histoire naturelle de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
₸ Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Open Access

Abstract

DNA barcoding and metabarcoding is increasingly used to effectively and precisely assess and monitor biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems. As these methods rely on data availability and quality of barcode reference libraries, it is important to develop and follow best practices to ensure optimal quality and traceability of the metadata associated with the reference barcodes used for identification. Sufficient metadata, as well as vouchers, corresponding to each reference barcode must be available to ensure reliable barcode library curation and, thereby, provide trustworthy baselines for downstream molecular species identification. This document (1) specifies the data and metadata required to ensure the relevance, the accessibility and traceability of DNA barcodes and (2) specifies the recommendations for DNA harvesting and for the storage of both voucher specimens/samples and barcode data.

Key Words

aquatic organisms, barcode, DNA, metadata, quality, reference library, traceability

1. Introduction

Human well-being is intimately linked to freshwater and marine ecosystems (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Worm et al. 2006; Borja et al. 2020). Although these systems support critical services to humans, such as water supply, fisheries or tourism, they increasingly face stressor impacts (Carvalho et al. 2019). Natural and especially anthropogenic alterations are introducing important pressures on rivers, lakes, coasts and seas (European Environmental Agency 2019). Beyond the services provided by these ecosystems and the need to protect their sustainability for future generations, there is an ethical need for societies to commit themselves for nature conservation.

Only 10% of European rivers have very low concentrations of micropollutants (Loos et al. 2009), which challenges citizens on the supply of aquatic ecosystem services (Boulton et al. 2016). Another alteration is related to the increasing need of human society for energy: there is a global boom of new hydropower dams in the last decades (Zarfl et al. 2015, 2019). Consequently, at global scale, only a few rivers remained free-flowing (Liermann et al. 2012; Grill et al. 2019). This increased habitat fragmentation results in a significant biodiversity loss in rivers which, in turn, impacts on ecosystem services (e.g. Arthington et al. 2010), such as food provisioning and cultural services. In marine ecosystems, new wind and wave farms, offshore drilling platforms and fish farms have been constructed in the last decades to meet energy needs. This has important impacts on biodiversity (Shields et al. 2011; Pawlowski et al. 2014c); these human activities destroy marine habitats (e.g. damage to sea floors due to trawling, coastal urban expansion, dredging and destruction of coral reefs and mangroves) or alter them (e.g. the construction of wind and wave farms, Shields et al. 2011). Human impact is particularly negative for coral reefs, mangroves and many other coastal regions (Halpern et al. 2008). However, millions of people depend upon services and functions of such ecosystems, including food, tourism and storm protection (Barbier et al. 2011). Overexploitation of marine and freshwater biodiversity, including overfishing and destruction of some habitats such as mangroves (e.g. Myers and Worm 2003) is particularly worrying. The spread of invasive species in freshwater and marine habitats has caused dramatic changes in ecosystems and biodiversity (Dextrase and Mandrak 2006; Molnar et al. 2008). Finally, global changes also impact aquatic ecosystems. In particular global warming, in combination with other pressures, such as nutrient loading, causes other detrimental effects, such as harmful algal blooming in lakes and seas (Jacquet et al. 2005; Jeppesen et al. 2005; Wells et al. 2015) or global water scarcity (Schewe et al. 2014). More specifically in marine ecosystems, global warming and acidification negatively impact marine diversity (Kroeker et al. 2013). These concerns about the state of rivers and lakes led scientists to warn about a global threat to human water security and biodiversity since more than 80% of the world’s population is exposed to such risk (Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Jenny et al. 2020).

Aquatic life and its biodiversity are crucial to ensure quality, quantity and delivery of aquatic ecosystem services (Cardinale et al. 2012; Stevenson 2014; Barbier 2017; Hammerschlag et al. 2019). For several decades, governments and transnational organisations have understood the necessity of monitoring aquatic life to set up political decisions that will help in improving or preserving aquatic ecosystems (Kopf et al. 2015). For instance, in the European legislation, several directives such as the Water Framework Directive (European Commission 2000), the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Commission 2008), the European regulation on invasive alien species (European Commission 2014), the Habitats Directive (The Council of the European Communities 1992) and the European Biodiversity Strategy (European Commission 2020) were set up to protect the integrity of particular species, habitats and aquatic ecosystems. These directives are applied in each member states’ legislation. In the USA, the Clean Water Act (Copeland 2016) also sets an ambitious framework for water ecosystems preservation and, in the marine realm, many countries have implemented legislation to protect them (Borja et al. 2008).

The implementation of such directives is generally based on methodologies that assess the presence and abundance of species in freshwater or marine ecosystems Hering et al. 2006; Borja et al. 2010; (Birk et al. 2012). Most of the classical methodologies used to detect and identify species rely on morphological differences. Visual observations or optical devices (binocular magnifiers or microscopes) enable experts to determine taxa and establish fauna or flora identification lists. However, such methods are time-consuming, require a high level of expertise to reliably identify the organisms and are, in some cases, unable to distinguish amongst closely-related or morphologically-indistinguishable species (i.e. cryptic species). Identification of immature stages (e.g. different ontogenic stages, such as eggs, juveniles, planktonic larvae) is also often impossible, especially for small organisms. The use of molecular, DNA-based tools to identify species overcomes this problem as long as DNA is preserved in the sample. DNA barcoding, the use of short, standardised gene sequences for species identification (Hebert et al. 2003) has become the most versatile and universally-applicable method since the adoption of standard DNA markers was agreed upon within the scientific community (e.g. COI in animals (Hebert et al. 2003), ITS in fungi (Schoch et al. 2012), MatK, rbcL (CBOL Plant Working Group 2009) or ITS (Li et al. 2011) in plants. The development of open access analytical tools and comprehensive data repositories (e.g. BOLD, the Barcode of Life Data Systems and Barcode Index Numbers (BINs)) has fast-forwarded the advancement of biodiversity assessments using DNA barcoding (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007; Ratnasingham and Hebert 2013). The method relies upon DNA reference libraries that link species-specific taxonomic classification to a reliable reference sequence (the barcode). With the entry of new sequencing techniques, the concept has been extended to identify specimens present in bulk or environmental samples (rather than single individuals) and dubbed DNA metabarcoding (Pompanon et al. 2011). Both DNA barcoding and metabarcoding have been successfully applied to key aquatic organisms used for ecosystem assessment: such as diatoms (Kermarrec et al. 2013; Zimmermann et al. 2014b), Foraminifera (Pawlowski and Lecroq 2010; Pawlowski et al. 2014a, b, 2016; Frontalini et al. 2020), ciliates, macroinvertebrates and particularly aquatic insects (Hajibabaei et al. 2012; Elbrecht and Leese 2015), marine benthic fauna (Aylagas et al. 2014; Lobo et al. 2017), fish (Hänfling et al. 2016; Pont et al. 2018), aquatic oligochaetes (Vivien et al. 2016, 2019), macroalgae and aquatic angiosperms (Scriver 2015; Akita et al. 2019, 2020). The international initiative iBOL (International Barcode of Life), currently represented by 35 member nations, is a research alliance committed to building and extending existing DNA barcode reference libraries, informatics platforms, analytical protocols and pipelines for assessments of biodiversity using molecular tools (https://ibol.org/).

An Achilles heel of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding is the taxonomic coverage and the data quality of the barcode reference libraries. Weigand et al. (2019) give an overview of gaps in the barcode libraries for species used in aquatic biomonitoring in Europe and show that, while more than 80% of all fish species are barcoded, only 26% of the marine invertebrates are covered. They also argue for the need for effective quality assurance and quality control of barcode reference libraries. With this in mind, it is important to develop and follow best practices to ensure that the quality and traceability of the metadata associated with the reference barcodes used for identification is optimised. As early as 2005, data standards for reference DNA barcode records to be deposited in INSDC (International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration) were given (Hanner 2005 revised in Hanner 2009). However, these standards were customised for INSDC, had a generalist nature and missed the specificity required for different organisms and ecosystems. Some guidelines for specific organisms were made for diatoms (e.g. Zimmermann et al. 2014a) and were standardised at European level (European Standardisation Committee 2018) and then translated into each member state’s language (e.g. in French: Afnor 2018). Similarly, some specific standards for data and protocols for fish were proposed in the framework of the Fish Barcode of Life campaign (Ward et al. 2009; Ward 2012). We focus on quality standards before the molecular generation of DNA barcodes commences, i.e. pre-PCR and sequencing. The objectives of this document are: (1) to specify the data and metadata required to ensure the relevance, the accessibility and traceability of DNA barcodes and (2) to specify the recommendations for DNA harvesting and for the storage of both voucher specimens/samples and barcode data.

2. Procedures

This section details the procedures for the storage of vouchers, DNA material, DNA-barcodes and for the harvesting of DNA.

2.1 Storage of voucher specimens

The first step in establishing a reference barcode is the correct morphological identification of specimens from which DNA will be isolated. The physical vouchers of the identified biological material should be deposited in a recognised and accessible natural history collection and be accompanied by a unique collection number (Vollmar et al. 2010; Blagoderov et al. 2012). Duplicates of vouchers could be deposited in an alternative recognised collection(s) to reduce the risk of losing vouchers and increase accessibility. Labels containing obligatory metadata must be attached to all parts of the specimens or preparations with the specimens included (such as permanent microscopic slides). Depending on the organism group, the physical vouchers can have different forms and the following sections (2.1.1 to 2.1.10) give for each organism, the obligatory and the recommended vouchers for the different types of biological materials usually used for DNA harvesting.

In the following sections, depending on the organisms considered, we recommend that vouchers are stored frozen. Various temperatures are presently used (-20 °C, -40 °C, -50 °C, -80 °C), but there is a lack of long-term comparisons (e.g. 100 years) of the impact of freezing temperatures on DNA conservation. Thus, we recommend that frozen vouchers should be stored at least -20 °C (or temperatures from -20 °C to -80 °C).

2.1.1 Cyanobacteria

Different kinds of biological material can be used:

– Dry specimens:

The obligatory voucher must be the thallus or large colonial structure built by cyanobacteria. The recommended voucher can be dried treated samples.

– Monoclonal isolate in culture:

The obligatory voucher must be a living culture with a unique strain number kept in a culture collection with appropriate light source (quality and quantity of daylight).

– Monoclonal and axenic isolate in culture:

The obligatory voucher must be a culture deposited in two official collections (e.g. PCC [Pasteur Culture Collection] in Paris, France, ATCC [American Type Culture Collection] in the USA, NIES-MCC [Microbial Culture Collection at the National Institute for Environmental Studies] in Tsukuba, Japan); those collections will give a unique number that is requested for publishing in official journals.

2.1.2 Diatoms

Different kinds of biological material can be used for diatoms:

– Culture:

The obligatory voucher must be biomass of the monoclonal culture kept at -80 °C or fixed in ethanol or fixed in a buffer and a labelled permanent microscope preparation of cleaned culture (frustules and valves). The recommended voucher can be a living culture with a unique strain number (kept in a culture collection), dried treated material, scanning electron microscope (SEM) stubs, loose dried unoxidised material, permanent slide. The recommended documentation are photographs of the alive cells and valves from slides and SEM stubs. Some diatom taxa can also be cryopreserved (e.g. Stock et al. 2018).

– Colony or filament:

The obligatory voucher must be a labelled permanent microscope preparation of the material (frustules and valves). The recommended voucher can be a living culture with a unique strain number (kept in a culture collection), dried treated material, scanning electron microscope stubs, loose dried unoxidised material, permanent slide. The recommended documentation are photographs of the alive cells and valves from slides and SEM stubs.

– Single cell:

The obligatory voucher must be light and/or electron microscope photographs showing diagnostic details of the cell. The recommended voucher can be a permanent microscopic slide with the frustule, if it has not been destroyed after extraction.

– Environmental sample:

The obligatory voucher must be raw material kept at -80 °C or fixed with ethanol (> 70%) or formaldehyde or buffer and a labelled permanent microscope preparation of the cleaned culture (frustule and valves). The recommended voucher can be dried treated material, scanning microscope stubs, loose dried unoxidised material, photographs.

2.1.3 Other microalgae

We propose one kind of biological material that can be used for other microalgae (other than diatoms and cyanobacteria); however, other options may be considered:

– Culture:

The obligatory voucher must be a monoclonal culture kept at -80 °C or fixed in ethanol or fixed in a buffer. The recommended voucher can be a living culture with a unique strain number (kept in a culture collection), dried treated material, light and/or electron microscope photos showing diagnostic details of the cell. Some microalgae taxa can also be cryopreserved (e.g. Stock et al. 2018).

2.1.4 Macroalgae and aquatic angiosperms

One kind of biological material can be used for macroalgae and aquatic angiosperms:

– Specimen kept dry or wet:

The obligatory voucher must be a voucher dried on a herbarium sheet. The recommended vouchers can be parts of the plant preserved wet (ethanol or formaldehyde) for anatomical or detailed morphological observations and/or a living culture with a unique strain number (kept in a culture collection).

2.1.5 Foraminifera

Different kinds of biological material can be used for Foraminifera:

– Single cell with mineral test:

The obligatory voucher must be electron microscope photographs showing details of the test. Since tests are destroyed during extraction, paratypes should be kept on micropaleontological slides. The recommended voucher can be dried tests of paratypes stored in micropaleontological slides at room temperature.

– Single cell with organic wall or naked:

The obligatory voucher must be light microscope photographs showing important details of the cell. Since cells are destroyed during DNA extraction, paratypes should be fixed in formalin and, for long term storage, be transferred into 70% ethanol. The recommended voucher can be test fixed in 4% formalin and permanently stored in 70% ethanol.

– Environmental sample:

The obligatory voucher must be untreated material of the environmental sample stored at -20 °C or -80 °C. The recommended voucher can be single cells isolated from the environmental sample, kept on slides or fixed and stored in 70% ethanol.

2.1.6 Macroinvertebrates, including crustaceans, echinoderms, insects, sipunculids and cnidarians

Different kinds of biological material can be used:

– Specimen frozen, dried or preserved in ethanol:

The obligatory voucher must be the hard exoskeleton dried for terrestrial taxa (e.g. pinned insects) or a specimen kept in ethanol (70–96%) or frozen (-20 °C). Slide mounts of part or of the whole specimen in permanent medium is recommended, if needed for morphological observations. The recommended voucher can also be tissue samples of specimens kept at -80 °C or -20 °C if the obligatory voucher is preserved in 70–96% ethanol.

2.1.7 Annelids

One kind of biological material can be used (Timm and Martin 2015; Vivien et al. 2017):

– Specimen preserved in absolute ethanol at -20 °C:

The obligatory voucher must be the anterior parts of specimen (at least the first 15 segments) kept in ethanol (> 80%) or in 4% formalin or mounted on a slide in a permanent medium. The recommended voucher used for subsequent genetic analyses can be a tissue sample of the obligatory voucher kept in absolute ethanol at -20 °C or -80 °C.

2.1.8 Molluscs

Two kinds of biological material can be used:

– Specimen preserved dry:

For shelled specimens, the obligatory voucher must be a shelled specimen preserved dry. The recommended voucher can be a separate tissue sample, high-resolution imaging data for shell surface and internal organisation (e.g. scanning electron microscopy, microtomography) and 3D model. For shell-less specimens (e.g. slugs), no ideal method for dry vouchers exists, but comprehensive imaging should be performed on living specimens prior to storing specimens in a wet collection.

– Specimen preserved wet:

The obligatory voucher must be a specimen stored wet in a preservative suitable for morphology and genetics (e.g. 80% ethanol, propylene glycol) or kept at -20 °C or -80 °C. The recommended voucher can be specimen tissues stored in a preservative suitable for morphology and genetics, comprehensive imaging data, permanent microscopic slide(s) with genital apparatus, mouth parts or other diagnostic morpho-taxonomic characters. Due to their high water content, wet preserved molluscs dilute the preservation liquid. As such, the initial preservative should be renewed after 24 h and a generally fair preservative to tissue ratio respected (e.g. > 5:1).

2.1.9 Fish

Two kinds of biological material can be used:

– Entire specimen or part of body preserved in ethanol or frozen:

Obligatory voucher must be entire body or part of body preserved in ethanol (> 80%) or frozen (-20 °C).

– Tissues samples preserved in ethanol or frozen or scales preserved dry:

The recommended voucher can be tissue samples of specimens kept at -80 °C or in ethanol (> 70%) or scales preserved dry.

2.1.10 Aquatic fungi

Two kinds of biological material can be used:

– Population from environmental sample:

The obligatory voucher must be a sample collected on a polycarbonate filter (0.6 μm pore-size) and stored at -20 °C or -80 °C. The recommended voucher can be a photograph.

– Obligate parasites:

The obligatory voucher must be a living culture isolate with its host. The recommended voucher can be raw cultures material kept frozen (-20 °C or 80 °C), photographs.

2.2 DNA harvesting and banking

DNA can be extracted from a variety of biological materials depending on the organism group (cultures, tissues, populations, natural samples of mixed organisms etc.). As Table 1 illustrates, the preferred method to extract DNA differs amongst organism groups and, for some organisms, multiple methods are possible. In common for most groups is the downstream use of PCR and a choice of Sanger or High Throughput Sequencing (HTS) to generate the DNA barcode depending on the state of the specimen (e.g. age, mixed sample etc.). However, also shallow shotgun sequencing (i.e. genome skimming) is used to generate reference barcodes (Alsos et al. 2020).

Table 1.

Biological material from which DNA can be harvested and recommendations for procedures to isolate DNA to generate DNA barcodes for aquatic organisms.

Organism Biological material Recommended method for DNA isolation References
Cyanobacteria Dried specimen in herbarium DNA extraction can be performed with commercial kits optimised for plants. Wright et al. (2001)
Isolated specimen from freshwater and brackish water (filaments for example) A basic phenol/chloroform extraction is feasible, but even boiling/freezing to release the DNA or boiling individual filaments in the reaction mix tube in the PCR machine prior to adding the DNA polymerase will work. Laamanen et al. (2001, 2002)
Culture of monoclonal isolate, axenic or not Several DNA extraction methods are available, but the one obtained is Shih et al. (2013) which was tested successfully on a wide diversity of cyanobacteria. Shih et al. (2013)
Diatoms Monoclonal culture from single algal cell isolation Cell isolation from an environmental sample, which is then grown in culture. DNA extraction from the culture, PCR and Sanger sequencing. Culture does not need to be axenic, but must host a single diatom taxon. Adopt this methodology for cultivable species. Abarca et al. (2014); Zimmermann et al. (2014)
Single cell from fresh environmental sample* Individual cell isolation from an environmental sample. DNA extraction, PCR and Sanger sequencing from the cell. This methodology is mostly suitable for large-celled species. Hamilton et al. (2015); Frankovich et al. (2018); Skibbe et al. (2018)
Population from fresh or ethanol (> 70%) preserved environmental sample DNA extraction of environmental sample, PCR, cloning and Sanger sequencing. Adopt this methodology for species in high abundance in an environmental sample. Khan-Bureau et al.(2016); Rimet et al. (2018)
Alternatively: high-throughput sequencing of the environmental sample, with subsequent bioinformatics and phylogenetic analysis to isolate the target species barcode. Adopt this method when target species are relatively well represented in an environmental sample, but are difficult or impossible to cultivate.
Other microalgae Culture of monoclonal isolate, pure or not DNA extraction from the culture, PCR and Sanger sequencing. Culture does not need to be axenic, but must host a single algal taxon. Adopt this methodology for cultivable species.
Macroalgae Specimen silica-dried, from herbarium specimen or preserved in ethanol (> 70%) DNA extraction of a clean portion of the thallus (with as little epiphytes as possible), PCR, Sanger sequencing. Different barcode markers are routinely applied for different groups of macroalgae. Saunders, (2015); McDevit and Saunders (2009); Saunder and McDevit (2012); Hall et al. (2010); Leliaert et al. (2014)
Population from environmental sample DNA extraction, PCR and high-throughput sequencing of the environmental sample, with subsequent bioinformatics and phylogenetic analysis to isolate the target species barcode. Akita et al. (2019, 2020)
Aquatic angiosperms Specimen silica-dried, from herbarium or environmental sample DNA extraction of a clean portion of the thallus (with as little epiphytes as possible), PCR, Sanger sequencing or high-throughput sequencing of the environmental sample. Ghahramanzadeh et al. (2013), Wang et al. (2010), Lucas et al. (2012), Scriver et al. (2015)
Foraminifera Single cell isolated from environmental sample Sediment samples are sieved over 500, 250, 125 and 63 µm sieves and stored separately in containers filled with seawater. Samples are inspected under a stereomicroscope and living foraminifera (distinguished by brownish, yellowish, reddish or greenish colour of cytoplasm and pseudopodial movement) are isolated. DNA extraction of single specimens in up to 500 µm of guanidine lysis buffer. For larger specimens, commercial kits adapted for plants can be used for DNA extraction. Semi-nested or nested PCR of the 18S rRNA barcode fragment for foraminifera and Sanger sequencing. Some species exhibit high intra-individual variability in their 18S rRNA genes and need to be cloned prior to sequencing. Pawlowski (2000); Pawlowski and Holzmann (2014); Darling et al. (2016)
Population from environmental sample DNA extraction using commercial kits adapted for soil. PCR with specific foraminiferal primers for 18S barcoding regions, high-throughput sequencing, bioinformatic and phylogenetic analyses to identify metabarcodes. Moss et al. (2016); Lecroq et al. (2011); Lejzerowicz et al. (2015); Pawlowski et al. (2014b, c)
Culture from single cell or few cells from environmental sample Only a few foraminiferal species can be cultured. Foraminifera have a complex life cycle alternating between sexual/asexual reproduction and only a few species are able to maintain repeated asexual reproduction under laboratory conditions. Single cells are isolated from cultures and extracted with guanidine lysis buffer. Semi-nested PCR, cloning (depending on intra-individual polymorphism), Sanger sequencing. Siemensma et al. (2017); Barras et al. (2009); Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil et al. (2015); Holzmann et al. (2018)
Macroinvertebrates, including arthropods, echinoderms, sipunculids and cnidarians Specimen fresh or preserved dried/pinned, in ethanol (> 70%) or frozen Destructive DNA extraction of tissue sample, without destroying diagnostic features in the remaining voucher (e.g. leg, muscle tissue), PCR, high-throughput or Sanger sequencing. Marine metazoans: Steinke et al. (2016); Insects: Porco et al. (2010)
Non-destructive DNA extraction of a complete specimen, PCR, high-throughput or Sanger sequencing. Haran et al. (2018)
Annelids Specimen preserved in ethanol (> 80%) at -20 °C or in neutral buffered formalin or fresh/frozen** DNA extraction of entire specimens or a fragment of specimens using guanidine lysis buffer or a commercial kit, PCR and Sanger sequencing or high-throughput sequencing of genetically-tagged specimens. Vivien et al. (2017, 2020)
Molluscs Specimen / tissue preserved in ethanol (> 70%) or propylene glycol DNA extraction, inhibitor removal, PCR and then high-throughput sequencing or Sanger sequencing.
Specimen / tissue preserved dry
Freshly-collected specimen
Fish Specimen or tissue preserved in ethanol (> 70%) or frozen, scales preserved dry DNA extraction of muscle tissue sample (usually white muscle taken from under a scalpel-cut skin flap on the right side of the fish), of thin tissues or scales, PCR and high-throughput or Sanger sequencing. Ward (2012); Marchand et al. (2018)
Aquatic fungi Zoosporic fungi: Population from environmental sample Enzymatic digestion and lysis buffer to digest the fungal chitin wall. Incubation with proteinase K and SDS for protein digestion and DNA extraction. DNA purification method using silica-membrane columns. PCR, cloning and sequencing. Lefèvre et al. (2010); Jobard et al. (2012)
Filamentous fungi and yeast: isolate kept in culture Disruption of filamentous fungal cell walls with glass bead method, followed by digestion using proteinase K. Gontia-Mishra et al. (2014)
Rinsing fungal mycelia or yeast cells with pure water to remove potential PCR inhibitors, followed by thermolysis at 85 °C in lysis buffer, DNA amplification and extraction. Zhang et al. (2010)

It is of great importance to store an aliquot of extracted DNA permanently to make DNA available for future research. The aliquot should be stored permanently at -20 °C or -80 °C in an established DNA bank or a biological specimen repository, with links to the corresponding metadata (see Section 3 below). To secure its visibility and accessibility, we recommend that the repository used is affiliated with a national or international network such as RARe, the French Agronomic Biological Resources Center network (https://www.agrobrc-rare.org/agrobrc-rare_eng/, Mougin et al. 2018), the Global Genome Biodiversity Network -GGBN- (http://www.ggbn.org, Droege et al. 2014), the European Research Infrastructure DiSSCO (Distributed System of Scientific Collections, https://www.dissco.eu/) or the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF, https://cetaf.org) which link institutions hosting collections that preserve genomic resources. Biological vouchers (reference specimens) should be stored in a publicly-accessible scientific collection that practises regular loans of material for scientific use (e.g. museums and natural history collections, national institutes collections and botanical gardens) (see details in Section 2.3).

2.3 Storage of DNA barcodes

We strongly recommend DNA barcodes and associated metadata to be stored digitally in public, open-access databases. Examples include general databases like BOLD (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007) which links metadata and images directly to the barcode, but also ENA (Amid et al. 2019) or NCBI GenBank (Benson et al. 2013) can do so with the appropriate tags. DNA barcodes can be also stored in more specialised databases that are frequently curated by experts such as SILVA (Quast et al. 2013), PR2 (Guillou et al. 2013), EukRef for eukaryotes (del Campo et al. 2018), now integrated in PR2 (https://pr2-database.org/eukref/about/), UniEuk (https://unieuk.org) PhytoRef for algae (Decelle et al. 2015), Algaterra for microalgae (Kusber et al. 2012, 2020+), Diat.barcode for diatoms (Rimet et al. 2019), UNITE for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019), Greengenes (DeSantis et al. 2006) and RDP (Cole et al. 2014) for bacteria, archaea and fungi. However, while most of these specialised databases practise taxonomic curation of the DNA sequence data, some are less concerned about keeping all the necessary metadata to ensure optimal traceability and, thus, reliability of the reference database.

3. Associated metadata

We consider the DNA sequence as primary data and all accompanying information as metadata. (See supplementary file for tabular overview of the below listed metadata).

3.1 General remarks about metadata

A reference barcode must be accompanied by a minimum set of metadata. The metadata, including photographs, must be stored in digital and open-access databases, such as those listed in Section 2.2 or in a publicly accessible collection database of the storing institution.

It is important that the metadata is stored in non-proprietary formats (e.g. text documents in .txt, images in .tif) and that such databases comply with FAIR Data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-usable, see Wilkinson et al. 2016) and the Biodiversity Information Standards, such as the Darwin Core, Audubon Core, ABCD 2005 standard (https://www.tdwg.org).

The metadata must be linked to the barcode via a unique identifier assigned by the database where the sequence is stored (e.g. accession number in ENA or in GenBank). If voucher material or culture strains are available in natural history or institutional culture collections, these should be linked to the sequence.

As detailed in the following sections, metadata should include information on the DNA marker, the strain cultivation, the natural sample, the taxonomic name, the identification, the sampling location, the voucher location and the barcode authors.

3.2 Categories of metadata

3.2.1 Biological material metadata

The metadata listed below give the obligatory and recommended items that ensure the traceability of the biological material used for DNA harvesting (see Section 2.1).

Biological specimens and environmental samples

Obligatory metadata

1. Location of the sampling site

a) Geographical coordinates: for example, expressed in decimal values in WGS84 or in a different, specified geographical positioning system.

b) Country according to the ISO 3166 standard, accepted name of ocean or sea.

c) Name of the locality.

Remarks:

– For species of heritage interest, Red List species or endangered species, national or regional regulations might ask not to reveal precise location coordinates in order to protect their populations. These regulations should be followed and the exact locality information hidden.

– In some cases, exact coordinates are not available (e.g. when older museum specimens are used; here a georeference of the locality plus an estimated uncertainty in metres can be added).

2. Date of sampling, preferably in ISO-format (YYYY-MM-DD).

3. Name of person who collected the specimen.

4. Photo(s) of the voucher specimen showing diagnostic features, including scale(s).

a) Macroscopic organisms: whole specimen or specified parts important for morphological identification. For fish, photos should be taken of the left side of the specimen. For specimens in which the morphology can be altered during storage (e.g. dry storage of molluscs) or preservation method (e.g. ethanol for anthozoans, molluscs, polychaetes and Sipuncunlids, for example, Manuel 1988; Saiz Salinas 1993; Nygren et al. 2011), high resolution photos should be taken before preservation. Relaxing chemicals may be used to facilitate imaging of live specimens to assure visibility of key morphological parts (e.g. proboscis eversion in polychaetes; Nygren et al. 2011; Bonyadi-Naeini et al. 2016).

b) Microscopic organisms: light microscopy and/or electron microscopy micrographs must show all the important details of the cells or the colonies that are necessary for identification.

5. Preservation status and fixative used to preserve the sample.

6. Conditions for access to the material: legal requirements for use or re-use of DNA/material resources with eventual references to national/international laws. A material transfer agreement might be necessary to regulate exchange.

7. Reference of the document (published article, report etc) linked to the deposition of the barcode sequence.

Recommended metadata

1. Environment (ecosystem) at sampling site (e.g. Lake, river, swamp, tidal flat, open sea, groundwater, hyporheos, mangrove, lagoon, estuary, deep sea, rocky shore, coral reef, etc.).

2. Substrate (rock, macrophyte, sediment, hot vent, interstitial, etc.).

3. Habitat (e.g. plankton, epipelon, epilithon, epipsammon, tychoplankton, alluvial region, porous or karstic aquifer, sea floor, pelagic, benthic, intertidal, subtidal, etc.).

4. Sampling elevation (m a.s.l.).

5. Sampling depth (m).

6. Sampling device or sampling protocol.

7. Photos of the sampling site.

8. Environmental measurements: luminosity, pH, conductivity, salinity, temperature, sediment’s grain size, organic matter content and redox potential.

9. Main ecological function(s) of the specimen (if known). For instance, already existing ecological classifications, such as FAPROTAX (Louca et al. 2016) and Tax4Fun (Aßhauer et al. 2015) for bacteria, the classification of Reynolds et al. (2002) and Padisák et al. (2009) for phytoplankton and Rimet and Bouchez (2012) for diatoms, for macro-invertebrates the classification of Usseglio-Polatera et al. (2000) or for plants, the one of Kattge et al. (2011).

10. Photos should carry the name of the photographer and associated licence, preferably a Creative Commons Licence that allows usage by third parties.

11. The FAO fishery area where the sampling was done (for marine taxa).

Cultures

Obligatory

1. Metadata associated with the environmental sample which was used to establish the culture (see above section).

2. Name of person who isolated the starting cell.

3. Date of isolation (date the uni-algal culture was established by isolating a cell from the environmental sample).

4. Date of harvesting (date the culture was harvested to extract DNA).

5. Photo(s) showing diagnostic features of the organism.

Recommended

1. Culture medium (recipe of medium used for cultivation).

2. Culture condition (light intensity, light cycles, temperature, humidity etc.).

3. Strain identifier (name or number that uniquely identifies the cultured strain in the collection).

3.2.2 Taxonomic information

To ensure universal practices across countries, taxonomic information must follow the international nomenclatural rules. Therefore, we recommend following the European standard (CEN 2014) for taxonomic identification. This standard includes, in particular, the following items:

Obligatory data

1. The most reliable identification to the lowest possible taxonomic rank.

2. The name used should follow the most recently-accepted published nomenclature. Due to the constant evolution of the taxonomy, careful consideration should be given to the validity and completeness of the nomenclatural naming. This identification should respect international codes of nomenclature (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/the-code-online/; International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php). Internationally-accepted species registries, such as AlgaeBase (Guiry and Guiry 2020), PhycoBank (Kusber et al. 2019), DiatomBase (Kociolek et al. 2018), World Register of Marine Species (http://www.marinespecies.org/, WoRMS Editorial Board 2020), FishBase (www.fishbase.org Froese and Pauly 2019), Eschmeyers Catalogue (https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/projects/eschmeyers-catalog-of-fishes, Fauna Europaea (https://fauna-eu.org/) are recommended, as well as the freshwater biodiversity data portal (http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu).

Recommended data

1. Genus names should include the name of the author(s) with year of publication of its original valid (algae, bacteria, fungi and plants) or available (animals) publication. Genus names should be written in italics.

2. Species epithets should include the name of the author(s) with year of publication of its description or combination (see above). Species epithets should be written in italics, while “sp.” should not.

3. If applicable, include name of infraspecific taxon (subspecies, variety, forma etc.) and citation of the author(s) with year of publication of its description or combination (see above).

4. Further notes on taxon status (e.g. phylogenetic affiliation, statements on the taxon concept adopted (i.e. whether a narrow/strict (sensu stricto) or a broader (sensu lato)). If necessary, a taxonym should be given including link to a published circumscription (Berendsohn 1995).

3.2.3 Identification metadata

Obligatory data

1. Name of the person who identified the specimen.

2. Date on which identification was made.

3. Identification method (e.g. morphology, BOLD ID engine, NCBI BLAST, etc.).

4. If applicable, use accepted terms to indicate uncertainty in the identification (e.g. aff., cf., sp., etc.).

Recommended data

1. Name of the person who verified the identification.

2. Identification history including dates for identifications.

3. Reference to literature used to identify the material, specifying figures and pages that helped the identification.

3.2.4 Vouchers metadata

Obligatory

1. Full name and acronym of the institution, natural history collection or of culture collection where the voucher is deposited (preferably according to Index Herbariorum for algae, fungi and plants).

2. Unique identifier given to the voucher specimen by the collection where it is deposited and permanently physically associated with the specimen via indelible labelling.

3. Voucher condition: whole specimen, body part, frozen material, living culture etc.

4. Voucher status: regular specimen, holotype, paratype, syntype, lectotype, paralectotype, neotype etc.

Recommended

1. Full name and acronym of the institution, natural history collection or culture collection where a duplicate voucher is deposited.

2. Unique identifier given to the duplicate voucher specimen by the collection where it is deposited.

3. Institution or collection where the original DNA sample is deposited.

4. Unique identifier given to the DNA sample and given by the collection where it is deposited.

5. Long-term stable identifiers linking directly to institutions in a publicly-available database (see Güntsch et al. 2017).

3.2.5 DNA marker metadata

Obligatory

1. Name and abbreviation of DNA marker (e.g. 18S, 16S, rbcL, cox1 …) following a standardised nomenclature (e.g. nomenclature given in: NCBI, VGNC, HGCN).

2. Name of barcode that includes details of the region inside a particular marker (e.g. 18S v4, COI-5’ etc.).

3. Forward and reverse primer with name and sequence from 5’-> 3’ direction (cite first publication, if applicable). If more of the DNA marker than the barcode region is sequenced (i.e. a longer sequence), all primers used should be listed.

4. Sequencing technology must be given, with the brand and name of the sequencer (e.g. Sanger sequencing on an Applied Biosystems 3730xl DNA Analyzer; high-throughput-sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq v2).

5. Sequence quality information (e.g. Phred score, Pherogram, fastq file, coverage or similar means to assess the quality of the stored sequences or sequencing runs).

6. Barcode generators: Person(s) who actively participated in generating the barcode.

Recommended

1. DNA extraction method including protocol, brand name of the kit, if applicable.

2. PCR Mix: recipe, reaction volume, name of brand mix, if applicable.

3. PCR Protocol: protocol used for PCR amplification including duration of each step (denaturation, annealing, elongation), annealing temperature and number of cycles. The name and brand of the cycler.

4. Company or laboratory that performed the sequencing.

5. For high-throughput sequencing: software and protocol used for sequence assembly.

4. Conclusions

Weigand et al. (2019) highlighted that particular care must be taken regarding the quality assurance/quality control of the reference barcode records to be produced, as failure to do so will limit their application, render them useless or even introduce wrong outcomes. The procedure and description of metadata associated with reference sequences given in this document are steps in this direction. We do not give a procedure to control the quality of the barcode, but we hope our descriptive overview and recommendations will enable standardisation and best-practice in the production and curation of reference DNA barcodes. The metadata provide key information for users of barcode reference libraries which could be time-saving in data-analysis processes. Some of them, such as ecological functions or ecological classifications, can lead to more direct utilisation of metabarcoding in functional ecological studies.

This document might appear to set ambitious targets for those producing barcodes; however, we believe that this minimum is necessary to ensure quality in barcode reference libraries and thus provide trustworthy results for DNA barcoding and metabarcoding. Moreover, a general focus of sustainable development and energy-saving measures should be considered by the collections hosting the vouchers.

Finally, as an overall philosophy, we wish to encourage forward thinking on the format and the contents of barcode libraries and on the need for a secure access to the invaluable genetic information therein, including the information linked to specimens from which the DNA originated.

5. Glossary

Arthropods: Multicellular animals of the phylum Arthropoda, including insects, arachnids, myriapods and crustaceans.

Barcode: See DNA barcode.

Base pair: Pair of complementary cross-linked nucleotides that are the building blocks of the DNA double helix.

Biological specimen: An organism of any kingdom (animal, plant or fungi) or part of an organism. Can be living (‘living specimen’), frozen, dried (e.g. herbarium material, pinned insects, fish scales) or preserved in liquid preservatives (e.g. entire fish in ethanol: ‘preserved specimen’).

BOLD: Barcode of Life Data Systems (www.boldsystems.org).

Culture: ex-situ cell culture. As a clonal culture derived from one isolated cell from the environment

Cultivator: Person responsible for the cultivation of a strain.

Cyanobacteria: phylum of free-living photosynthetic bacteria.

Diatoms (Bacillariophyta): Group of unicellular algae, some of which form filaments or colonies, with cell walls made of silica. They are major contributors to primary productivity worldwide and are often used in ecological assessment.

DNA barcode: A stretch of DNA from a universally-accepted DNA marker that uniquely identifies specimens to species, in the context of DNA-based identification, often called just ‘barcode’.

DNA marker: Name of the coding or non-coding region (e.g. gene, spacer region) within the genome from which the barcode has been sequenced. The naming of the coding or non-coding regions should follow standard scientific practice.

ENA: European Nucleotide Archive (www.ebi.ac.uk/ena).

Environmental sample: Collection of a portion of a natural environment (water, sediment, soil or air). It contains DNA from organisms living in this environment.

Fish: A group of vertebrates containing jawless fish (Agnatha), cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes) and bony fish (Osteichthyes).

Fungi: group of heterotrophic eukaryotes including zoosporic, filamentous and yeast forms.

Foraminifera: Group of unicellular heterotrophic or mixotrophic eukaryotes with organic theca or agglutinated or mineral test (rarely naked) living in all marine environments and also found in freshwater and soil. Foraminifera are used as bioindicators and can give information on pre-anthropogenic conditions as they fossilise.

GenBank: National Institutes of Health (USA) genetic sequence database, an annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences.

Habitat: Specific environment in which an organism lives.

HGCN: Human Gene Nomenclature Committee.

Insects (class Insecta): Hexapod invertebrates within the phylum Arthropoda (e.g. beetles, flies, odonates), characterised by a chitinous exoskeleton, a three-part body (head, thorax and abdomen), three pairs of jointed legs, compound eyes and one pair of antennae.

Isolate: A population of cells isolated from a natural population in order to be cultured and studied. The term is usually applied in microbiology.

Isolator: person responsible of the isolation of the cell from which the clonal culture was established

Macroalgae: Macroscopic algae, comprising red (Rhodophyta), green (Viridiplantae) and brown (Phaeophyceae) lineages and forming ecologically-important primary producers in marine (all three lineages) and freshwater (green algae, mainly) ecosystems.

Metabarcoding: An identification method that enables identification of a mixture of organisms in a sample using short DNA sequences and high-througput sequencing.

Molluscs: An organism group referring to the taxa Gastropoda (snails and slugs), Bivalvia (e.g. clams, scallops, mussels), Polyplacophora (chitons), Cephalopoda (e.g. squids, octopus), Scaphopoda (tusk shells), Aplacophora and Monoplacophora.

NCBI: National Center for Biotechnology Information (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Obligate parasite: a living organism which depends on a host to complete its lifecycle.

Oligochaetes: Class of the phylum Annelida. The principal aquatic oligochaete families are Naididae (Naidinae and Tubificinae), Enchytraeidae, Lumbriculidae, Haplotaxidae and Propappidae. In addition, the Lumbricidae family includes aquatic and amphibious species.

Pherogram: Graphical account of the results from Sanger sequencing where each nucleotide is represented by a single peak and the sequence of peaks correlates to the DNA sequence of the sample analysed.

Primer: Strand of nucleic acids that serves as starting point for DNA replication.

PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction; process used for the amplification of a target region of DNA.

PCR primer: synthesised short single-stranded nucleic acids that serve as starting point for DNA synthesis in the PCR-reaction.

Taxon (plural taxa): Taxonomic unit, for example family, genus or species. In systematics, it designates a unit to which living beings are assigned according to certain criteria. Each known taxon has a scientific name, nomenclatural type and a circumscription.

Taxonym: Taxonomic concept specified by the scientific name and the reference in which its name is used.

Taxonomic backbone: Index of published taxon names which is used by databases to automatically cross-reference name entries.

VGNC: Vertebrate Gene Nomenclature Committee.

Voucher: Physical specimen of a sample deposited in a collection.

Acknowledgements

Patricia Mergen (Botanical Garden of Meise, Belgium) is thanked for introducing experts who co-authored this paper. We thank Charlotte Duval and Claude Yéprémian of the MNHN (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) for their comments. We acknowledge Axel Hausmann, Matthias F. Geiger and two additional anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

This paper was written under COST Action DNAqua-Net. The European COST Action DNAqua-Net (CA 15219 https://dnaqua.net/) is a collaborative network which gathers several hundreds of scientists and water managers, with the objective of developing new genetic tools for bioassessment and monitoring of aquatic ecosystems (Leese et al. 2016). Reference libraries, together with their feasibility and quality, are one of the most important subjects of DNAqua-Net and several meetings highlighted the need to improve the reference data and maintain their quality and reliability. This has been formalised in the discussion of Weigand et al. (2019).

References

  • Afnor (2018) Qualité de l’eau – Rapport technique relatif à la gestion des codes barres diatomées – FD CEN/TR 17244. Afnor, 12 pp.
  • Akita S, Murasawa H, Kondo M, Takano Y, Kawakami Y, Nagai S, Fujita D (2020) DNA metabarcoding analysis of macroalgal seed banks on shell surface of the limpet Niveotectura pallida. European Journal of Phycology 55: 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2020.1750056
  • Akita S, Takano Y, Nagai S, Kuwahara H, Kajihara R, Tanabe AS, Fujita D (2019) Rapid detection of macroalgal seed bank on cobbles: application of DNA metabarcoding using next-generation sequencing. Journal of Applied Phycology 31: 2743–2753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-018-1730-9
  • Alsos IG, Lavergne S, Merkel MKF, Boleda M, Lammers Y, Alberti A, Pouchon C, Denoeud F, Pitelkova I, Pușcaș M, Roquet C, Hurdu BI, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE, Hollingsworth PM, Coissac E (2020) The treasure vault can be opened: large-scale genome skimming works well using herbarium and silica gel dried material. Plants 9: e432. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040432
  • Amid C, Alako BTF, Balavenkataraman Kadhirvelu V, Burdett T, Burgin J, Fan J, Harrison PW, Holt S, Hussein A, Ivanov E, Jayathilaka S, Kay S, Keane T, Leinonen R, Liu X, Martinez-Villacorta J, Milano A, Pakseresht A, Rahman N, Rajan J, Reddy K, Richards E, Smirnov D, Sokolov A, Vijayaraja S, Cochrane G (2020) The European Nucleotide Archive in 2019. Nucleic Acids Research 48: D70–D76. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1063
  • Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Pawlowski J (2015) Molecular phylogeny and morphology of Leannia veloxifera n. gen. et sp. unveils a new lineage of Monothalamous Foraminifera. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 62(3): 353–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12190
  • Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Nilsson C (2010) Preserving the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshwater Biology 55: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02340.x
  • Aylagas E, Borja A, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N (2014) Environmental status assessment using DNA metabarcoding: towards a Genetics Based Marine Biotic Index (gAMBI). PLoS ONE 9: e90529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090529
  • Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81: 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1
  • Barras C, Geslin E, Duplessy JC, Jorissen FJ (2009) Optimisation of laboratory conditions to obtain reproduction and growth of the deep-sea benthic foraminifer Bulimina marginata. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 39(3): 155–165. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsjfr.39.3.155
  • Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, Brucet S, Courrat A, Poikane S, Solimini A, van de Bund WV, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.009
  • Blagoderov V, Kitching IJ, Livermore L, Simonsen TJ, Smith VS (2012) No specimen left behind: industrial scale digitization of natural history collections. ZooKeys 209: 133–146. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3178
  • Borja A, White MP, Berdalet E, Bock N, Eatock C, Kristensen P, Leonard A, Lloret J, Pahl S, Parga M, Prieto JV, Wuijts S, Fleming LE (2020) Moving toward an agenda on ocean health and human health in Europe. Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00037
  • Borja A, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen A-S, van de Bund W (2010) Marine management – towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 2175–2186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.026
  • Borja A, Bricker SB, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, Hutchings P, Jia X, Kenchington R, Marques JC, Zhu C (2008) Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 1519–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.07.005
  • Boulton AJ, Ekebom J, Gíslason G (2016) Integrating ecosystem services into conservation strategies for freshwater and marine habitats: a review. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26: 963–985. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2703
  • Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
  • Carvalho L, Mackay EB, Cardoso AC, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Birk S, Blackstock KL, Borics G, Borja A, Feld CK, Ferreira MT, Globevnik L, Grizzetti B, Hendry S, Hering D, Kelly M, Langaas S, Meissner K, Panagopoulos Y, Penning E, Rouillard J, Sabater S, Schmedtje U, Spears BM, Venohr M, van de Bund W, Solheim AL (2019) Protecting and restoring Europe’s waters: an analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment 658: 1228–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.255
  • CEN (2014) EN 16493, Water quality – Nomenclatural requirements for the recording of biodiversity data, taxonomic checklists and keys, 14 pp.
  • Cole JR, Wang Q, Fish JA, Chai B, McGarrell DM, Sun Y, Brown CT, Porras-Alfaro A, Kuske CR, Tiedje JM (2014) Ribosomal Database Project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 42(Database issue): D633–D642. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1244 [PMID: 24288368]
  • Darling KF, Schweizer M, Knudsen KL, Evans KM, Bird C, Roberts A, Filipsson HL, Kim J-H, Gudmundsson G, Wade CM, Sayer MDJ, Austin WEN (2016) The genetic diversity, phylogeography and morphology of Elphidiidae (Foraminifera) in the Northeast Atlantic. Marine Micropaleontology 129: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marmicro.2016.09.001
  • Decelle J, Romac S, Stern RF, Bendif EM, Zingone A, Audic S, Guiry MD, Guillou L, Tessier D, Gall FL, Gourvil P, Santos ALD, Probert I, Vaulot D, Vargas C de, Christen R (2015) PhytoREF: a reference database of the plastidial 16S rRNA gene of photosynthetic eukaryotes with curated taxonomy. Molecular Ecology Resources 15: 1435–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12401
  • del Campo J, Kolisko M, Boscaro V, Santoferrara LF, Nenarokov S, Massana R, Guillou L, Simpson A, Berney C, de Vargas C, Brown MW, Keeling PJ, Parfrey LW (2018) EukRef: Phylogenetic curation of ribosomal RNA to enhance understanding of eukaryotic diversity and distribution. PLOS Biology 16: e2005849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005849
  • DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, Huber T, Dalevi D, Hu P, Andersen GL (2006) Greengenes, a Chimera-Checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72: 5069–5072. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05
  • Droege G, Barker K, Astrin JJ, Bartels P, Butler C, Cantrill D, Coddington J, Forest F, Gemeinholzer B, Hobern D, Mackenzie-Dodds J, Tuama EO, Petersen G, Sanjur O, Schindel D, Seberg O (2014) The Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) Data Portal. Nucleic Acids Research 42: D607–D612. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt928
  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
  • Elbrecht V, Leese F (2015) Testing primer bias and biomass – sequence relationships in metabarcoding: implications for monitoring of freshwater invertebrate communities. Genome 58: 215–215.
  • European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 327: 1–72.
  • European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union 22.
  • European Commission (2014) Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, 55 pp.
  • European Environmental Agency (2019) The European environment – state and outlook 2020. Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. European Environment Agency, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 499 pp.
  • European Standardisation Committee (2018) CEN/TR 17244 – Water quality – Technical report for the management of diatom barcodes. CEN-CEN ELEC 1–11.
  • Frankovich TA, Ashworth MP, Sullivan MJ, Theriot EC, Stacy NI (2018) Epizoic and Apochlorotic Tursiocola species (Bacillariophyta) from the skin of Florida Manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Protist 169: 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2018.04.002
  • Froese R, Pauly D (2019) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org [version (12/2019)]
  • Frontalini F, Cordier T, Balassi E, Armynot du Chatelet E, Cermakova K, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Martins MVA, Bucci C, Scantamburlo E, Treglia M, Bonamin V, Pawlowski J (2020) Benthic foraminiferal metabarcoding and morphology-based assessment around three offshore gas platforms: Congruence and complementarity. Environment International 144: e106049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106049
  • Ghahramanzadeh R, Esselink G, Kodde LP, Duistermaat H, van Valkenburg JLCH, Marashi SH, Smulders MJM, van de Wiel CCM (2013) Efficient distinction of invasive aquatic plant species from non-invasive related species using DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 13: 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12020
  • Gontia-Mishra I, Tripathi N, Tiwari S (2014) A simple and rapid DNA extraction protocol for filamentous fungi efficient for molecular studies. Indian Journal of Biotechnology 13: 536–539.
  • Grill G, Lehner B, Thieme M, Geenen B, Tickner D, Antonelli F, Babu S, Borrelli P, Cheng L, Crochetiere H, Macedo HE, Filgueiras R, Goichot M, Higgins J, Hogan Z, Lip B, McClain ME, Meng J, Mulligan M, Nilsson C, Olden JD, Opperman JJ, Petry P, Liermann CR, Saenz L, Salinas-Rodriguez S, Schelle P, Schmitt RJP, Snider J, Tan F, Tockner K, Valdujo PH, van Soesbergen A, Zarfl C (2019) Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569: 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9
  • Güntsch A, Hyam R, Hagedorn G, Chagnoux S, Röpert D, Casino A, Droege G, Glöckler F, Gödderz K, Groom Q, Hoffmann J, Holleman A, Kempa M, Koivula H, Marhold K, Nicolson N, Smith VS, Triebel D (2017) Actionable, long-term stable, and semantic web compatible identifiers for access to biological collection objects. Database: bax003. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax003
  • Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, Boutte C, Burgaud G, de Vargas C, Decelle J, del Campo J, Dolan JR, Dunthorn M, Edvardsen B, Holzmann M, Kooistra WHCF, Lara E, Le Bescot N, Logares R, Mahe F, Massana R, Montresor M, Morard R, Not F, Pawlowski J, Probert I, Sauvadet AL, Siano R, Stoeck T, Vaulot D, Zimmermann P, Christen R (2013) The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote Small Sub-Unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Research 41: D597–D604. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1160
  • Guiry MD, Guiry GM (2020) AlgaeBase . World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. http://www.algaebase.org [searched on 16 june 2020]
  • Hajibabaei M, Spall JL, Shokralla S, van Konynenburg S (2012) Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through nondestructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol. BMC Ecology 12: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-28
  • Hall JD, Fucikova K, Lo C, Lewis LA, Karol KG (2010) An assessment of proposed DNA barcodes in freshwater green algae. Cryptogamie, Algologie 31(4): 529–555.
  • Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R (2008) A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345
  • Hammerschlag N, Schmitz OJ, Flecker AS, Lafferty KD, Sih A, Atwood TB, Gallagher AJ, Irschick DJ, Skubel R, Cooke SJ (2019) Ecosystem function and services of aquatic predators in the Anthropocene. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34: 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.005
  • Hänfling B, Handley LL, Read DS, Hahn C, Li J, Nichols P, Blackman RC, Oliver A, Winfield IJ (2016) Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Molecular Ecology 25: 3101–3119. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13660
  • Hanner R (2005) Proposed Standards for BARCODE Records in INSDC (BRIs). Technical report, Database Working Groups, Consortium for the Barcode of Life.
  • Haran J, Delvare G, Vayssieres JF, Benoit L, Cruaud P, Rasplus JY, Cruaud A (2018) Increasing the utility of barcode databases through high-throughput sequencing of amplicons from dried museum specimens, an example on parasitic hymenoptera (Braconidae). Biological Control 122: 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.04.001
  • Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 270: 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
  • Heeger F, Bourne EC, Baschien C, Yurkov A, Bunk B, Spröer C, Overmann J, Mazzoni CJ, Monaghan MT (2018) Long-read DNA metabarcoding of ribosomal RNA in the analysis of fungi from aquatic environments. Molecular Ecology Resources 18: 1500–1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12937
  • Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot PFM (2006) Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51: 1757–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x
  • Holzmann M, Rigaud S, Amini S, Voltski I, Pawlowski J (2018) Cyrea szymborska gen. et sp. nov. – a new textulariid foraminifera from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 48: 156–163. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsjfr.48.2.156
  • Jacquet S, Briand JF, Leboulanger C, Avois-Jacquet C, Oberhaus L, Tassin B, Vincon-Leite B, Paolini G, Druart JC, Anneville O, Humbert JF (2005) The proliferation of the toxic cyanobacterium Planktothrix rubescens following restoration of the largest natural French lake (Lac du Bourget). Harmful Algae 4: 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2003.12.006
  • Heeger F, Bourne EC, Baschien C, Yurkov A, Bunk B, Spröer C, Overmann J, Mazzoni CJ, Monaghan MT (2018) Long-read DNA metabarcoding of ribosomal RNA in the analysis of fungi from aquatic environments. Molecular Ecology Resources 18: 1500–1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12937
  • Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M, Jensen JP, Havens KE, Anneville O, Carvalho L, Coveney MF, Deneke R, Dokulil MT, Foy B, Gerdeaux D, Hampton SE, Hilt S, Kangur K, Kohler J, Lammerns E, Lauridsen T, Manca M, Miracle M, Moss B, Noges P, Persson G, Phillips G, Portilje R, Romo S, Schelske C, Straile D, Tatrai I, Willen E, Winder M (2005) Lake response to reduced nutrient loading – an analysis of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies. Freshwater Biology 50: 1747–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01415.x
  • Jobard M, Rasconi S, Solinhac L, Cauchie HM, Sime-Ngando T (2012) Molecular and morphological diversity of fungi and the associated functions in three European nearby lakes. Environmental Microbiology 14: 2480–2494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02771.x
  • Kattge J, Díaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice IC, Leadley P, Bönisch G, Garnier E, Westoby M, Reich PB, Wright IJ, Cornelissen JHC, Violle C, Harrison SP, Bodegom PMV, Reichstein M, Enquist BJ, Soudzilovskaia NA, Ackerly DD, Anand M, Atkin O, Bahn M, Baker TR, Baldocchi D, Bekker R, Blanco CC, Blonder B, Bond WJ, Bradstock R, Bunker DE, Casanoves F, Cavender-Bares J, Chambers JQ, Iii FSC, Chave J, Coomes D, Cornwell WK, Craine JM, Dobrin BH, Duarte L, Durka W, Elser J, Esser G, Estiarte M, Fagan WF, Fang J, Fernández-Méndez F, Fidelis A, Finegan B, Flores O, Ford H, Frank D, Freschet GT, Fyllas NM, Gallagher RV, Green WA, Gutierrez AG, Hickler T, Higgins SI, Hodgson JG, Jalili A, Jansen S, Joly CA, Kerkhoff AJ, Kirkup D, Kitajima K, Kleyer M, Klotz S, Knops JMH, Kramer K, Kühn I, Kurokawa H, Laughlin D, Lee TD, Leishman M, Lens F, Lenz T, Lewis SL, Lloyd J, Llusià J, Louault F, Ma S, Mahecha MD, Manning P, Massad T, Medlyn BE, Messier J, Moles AT, Müller SC, Nadrowski K, Naeem S, Niinemets Ü, Nöllert S, Nüske A, Ogaya R, Oleksyn J, Onipchenko VG, Onoda Y, Ordoñez J, Overbeck G, Ozinga WA, Patiño S, Paula S, Pausas JG, Peñuelas J, Phillips OL, Pillar V, Poorter H, Poorter L, Poschlod P, Prinzing A, Proulx R, Rammig A, Reinsch S, Reu B, Sack L, Salgado-Negret B, Sardans J, Shiodera S, Shipley B, Siefert A, Sosinski E, Soussana J-F, Swaine E, Swenson N, Thompson K, Thornton P, Waldram M, Weiher E, White M, White S, Wright SJ, Yguel B, Zaehle S, Zanne AE, Wirth C (2011) TRY – a global database of plant traits. Global Change Biology 17: 2905–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.x
  • Kermarrec L, Franc A, Rimet F, Chaumeil P, Humbert JF, Bouchez A (2013) Next-generation sequencing to inventory taxonomic diversity in eukaryotic communities: a test for freshwater diatoms. Molecular Ecology Resources 13: 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12105
  • Khan-Bureau DA, Morales EA, Ector L, Beauchene MS, Lewis LA (2016) Characterization of a new species in the genus Didymosphenia and of Cymbella janischii (Bacillariophyta) from Connecticut, USA. European Journal of Phycology 51: 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2015.1126361
  • Kociolek JP, Balasubramanian B, Blanco S, Coste M, Ector L, Liu Y, Kulikovskiy M, Lundholm N, Ludwig T, Potapova M, Rimet F, Sabbe K, Sala SE, Sar EA, Taylor JC, Van De Vijver B, Wetzel CE, Williams DM, Witkowski A, Witkowski J (2018) DiatomBase. [website:] www.diatombase.org
  • Kopf RK, Finlayson CM, Humphries P, Sims NC, Hladyz S (2015) Anthropocene baselines: assessing change and managing biodiversity in human-dominated aquatic ecosystems. BioScience 65: 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv092
  • Kroeker KJ, Kordas RL, Crim R, Hendriks IE, Ramajo L, Singh GS, Duarte CM, Gattuso J-P (2013) Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology 19: 1884–1896. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12179
  • Kusber W-H, Abarca N, Skibbe O, Zimmermann J, Jahn R [Ed.] (2020+) AlgaTerra Information System [online]. Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin. [12 June 2020]. http://www.algaterra.org
  • Kusber WH, Abarca N, Skibbe O, Zimmermann J, Jahn R (2012) Reference library of DNA-barcoded diatoms – A use case for publishing data via the GBIF database AlgaTerra. In: Sabbe K, Van De Vijver B, Vyverman W (Eds) Twenty Second International Diatom Symposium, Aula Academica, VLIZ Special Publication 58: e65.
  • Kusber WH, Kohlbecker A, Mohamad H, Güntsch A, Berendsohn WG, Jahn R (2019) Registration of algal novelties in Phycobank: serving the scientific community and filling gaps in the global names backbone. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3: e37285. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37285
  • Lecroq B, Lejzerowicz F, Bachar D, Christen R, Esling P, Baerlocher L, Østerås M, Farinelli L, Pawlowski J (2011) Ultra-deep sequencing of foraminiferal microbarcodes unveils hidden richness of early monothalamous lineages in deep-sea sediments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(32): 13177–13182. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018426108
  • Leese F, Altermatt F, Bouchez A, Ekrem T, Hering D, Meissner K, Mergen P, Pawlowski J, Piggott J, Rimet F, Steinke D, Taberlet P, Weigand A, Abarenkov K, Beja P, Bervoets L, Björnsdóttir S, Boets P, Boggero A, Bones A, Borja Á, Bruce K, Bursić V, Carlsson J, Čiampor F, Čiamporová-Zatovičová Z, Coissac E, Costa F, Costache M, Creer S, Csabai Z, Deiner K, DelValls Á, Drakare S, Duarte S, Eleršek T, Fazi S, Fišer C, Flot J-F, Fonseca V, Fontaneto D, Grabowski M, Graf W, Guðbrandsson J, Hellström M, Hershkovitz Y, Hollingsworth P, Japoshvili B, Jones J, Kahlert M, Stroil BK, Kasapidis P, Kelly M, Kelly-Quinn M, Keskin E, Kõljalg U, Ljubešić Z, Maček I, Mächler E, Mahon A, Marečková M, Mejdandzic M, Mircheva G, Montagna M, Moritz C, Mulk V, Naumoski A, Navodaru I, Padisák J, Pálsson S, Panksep K, Penev L, Petrusek A, Pfannkuchen M, Primmer C, Rinkevich B, Rotter A, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Segurado P, Speksnijder A, Stoev P, Strand M, Šulčius S, Sundberg P, Traugott M, Tsigenopoulos C, Turon X, Valentini A, Hoorn B van der, Várbíró G, Hadjilyra MV, Viguri J, Vitonytė I, Vogler A, Vrålstad T, Wägele W, Wenne R, Winding A, Woodward G, Zegura B, Zimmermann J (2016) DNAqua-Net: Developing new genetic tools for bioassessment and monitoring of aquatic ecosystems in Europe. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e11321. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e11321
  • Lefèvre E, Jobard M, Venisse JS, Bec A, Kagami M, Amblard C, Sime-Ngando T (2010) Development of a real-time PCR assay for quantitative assessment of uncultured freshwater zoosporic fungi. Journal of Microbiological Methods 81: 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2010.02.002
  • Leliaert F, Verbruggen H, Vanormelingen P, Steen F, Lopez-Bautista JM, Zuccarello GC, De Clerck O (2014) DNA-based species delimitation in algae. European Journal of Phycology 49: 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2014.904524
  • Li D-Z, Gao L-M, Li H-T, Wang H, Ge X-J, Liu J-Q, Chen Z-D, Zhou S-L, Chen S-L, Yang J-B, Fu C-X, Zeng C-X, Yan H-F, Zhu Y-J, Sun Y-S, Chen S-Y, Zhao L, Wang K, Yang T, Duan G-W (2011) Comparative analysis of a large dataset indicates that internal transcribed spacer (ITS) should be incorporated into the core barcode for seed plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108: 19641–19646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104551108
  • Lobo J, Shokralla S, Costa MH, Hajibabaei M, Costa FO (2017) DNA metabarcoding for high-throughput monitoring of estuarine macrobenthic communities. Scientific Reports 7: e15618. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15823-6
  • Loos R, Gawlik BM, Locoro G, Rimaviciute E, Contini S, Bidoglio G (2009) EU-wide survey of polar organic persistent pollutants in European river waters. Environmental Pollution 157: 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.09.020
  • Molnar JL, Gamboa RL, Revenga C, Spalding MD (2008) Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(9): 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1890/070064
  • Jenny J-P, Anneville O, Arnaud F, Baulaz Y, Bouffard D, Domaizon I, Bocaniov SA, Chèvre N, Dittrich M, Dorioz J-M, Dunlop ES, Dur G, Guillard J, Guinaldo T, Jacquet S, Jamoneau A, Jawed Z, Jeppesen E, Krantzberg G, Lenters J, Leoni B, Meybeck M, Nava V, Nõges T, Nõges P, Patelli M, Pebbles V, Perga M-E, Rasconi S, Ruetz CR, Rudstam L, Salmaso N, Sapna S, Straile D, Tammeorg O, Twiss MR, Uzarski DG, Ventelä A-M, Vincent WF, Wilhelm SW, Wängberg S-Å, Weyhenmeyer GA (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity: rapid degradation of the world’s large lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 46: 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2020.05.006
  • Manuel RL (1988) British Anthozoa (Coelenterata: Octocorallia & Hexacorallia): Keys and Notes for the Identification of the Species. E.J. Brill and W. Backhuys, Leiden, 241 pp.
  • Marchand F, Aymes JC, Gueraud F, Guillard J, Goulon C, Hamelet V, Lange F, Prevost E, Baglinière JL, Beaulaton L, Penil C, Azam D (2018) Colisa, the collection of ichthyological samples. https://doi.org/10.15454/D3ODJM [Portail Data INRAE, V1]
  • McDevit DC, Saunders GW (2009) On the utility of DNA barcoding for species differentiation among brown macroalgae (Phaeophyceae) including a novel extraction protocol. Phycological Research 57: 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1835.2009.00530.x
  • Moss JA, McCurry C, Schwing P, Jeffrey WH, Romero IC, Hollander DJ, Snyder RA (2016) Molecular characterization of benthic foraminifera communities from the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf and slope following the Deepwater Horizon event. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 115: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.04.010
  • Mougin C, Artige E, Marchand F, Mondy S, Ratie C, Sellier N, Castagnone-Sereno P, Coeur D’Acier A, Esmenjaud D, Faivre-Primot C, Granjon L, Hamelet V, Lange F, Pages S, Rimet F, Ris N, Salle G (2018) BRC4Env, a network of Biological Resource Centres for research in environmental and agricultural sciences. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 33849–33857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1973-7
  • Nilsson RH, Larsson KH, Taylor AFS, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen TS, Schigel D, Kennedy P, Picard K, Glockner FO, Tedersoo L, Saar I, Koljalg U, Abarenkov K (2019) The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Research 47: 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1022
  • Nygren A, Norlinder E, Panova M, Pleijel F (2011) Colour polymorphism in the polychaete Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767). Marine Biology Research 7: 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451001003713555
  • Padisák J, Crossetti LO, Naselli-Flores L (2009) Use and misuse in the application of the phytoplankton functional classification: a critical review with updates. Hydrobiologia 621: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9645-0
  • Pawlowski J (2000) Introduction to the molecular systematics of foraminifera. Micropaleontology 46(Suppl. 1): 1–112.
  • Pawlowski J, Esling P, Lejzerowicz F, Cedhagen T, Wilding TA (2014b) Environmental monitoring through protist NGS metabarcoding: assessing the impact of fish farming on benthic foraminifera communities. Molecular Ecology Resources 14(6): 1129–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12261
  • Pawlowski J, Lejzerowicz F, Esling P (2014c) Next-generation environmental diversity surveys of foraminifera: preparing the future. Biological Bulletin 227(2): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1086/BBLv227n2p93
  • Pompanon F, Coissac E, Taberlet P (2011) Metabarcoding a new way to analyze biodiversity. Biofutur: 30–32.
  • Pont D, Rocle M, Valentini A, Civade R, Jean P, Maire A, Roset N, Schabuss M, Zornig H, Dejean T (2018) Environmental DNA reveals quantitative patterns of fish biodiversity in large rivers despite its downstream transportation. Scientific Reports 8: e10361. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28424-8
  • Porco D, Rougerie R, Deharveng L, Hebert PDN (2010) Coupling non-destructive DNA extraction and voucher retrieval for small soft-bodied Arthropods in a high-throughput context: the example of Collembola. Molecular Ecology Resources 10(6): 942–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.2839.x
  • Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glockner FO (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research 41: D590–D596. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219
  • Reynolds CS, Huszar V, Kruk C, Naselli-Flores L, Melo S (2002) Towards a functional classification of the freshwater phytoplankton. Journal of Plankton Research 24: 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/24.5.417
  • Rimet F, Bouchez A (2012) Life-forms, cell-sizes and ecological guilds of diatoms in European rivers. Knowledge and management of Aquatic Ecosystems 406: 01. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2012018
  • Rimet F, Abarca N, Bouchez A, Kusber WH, Jahn R, Kahlert M, Keck F, Kelly MG, Mann DG, Piuz A, Trobajo R, Tapolczai K, Vasselon V, Zimmermann J (2018) The potential of high throughput sequencing (HTS) of natural samples as a source of primary taxonomic information for reference libraries of diatom barcodes. Fottea 18: 37–54. https://doi.org/10.5507/fot.2017.013
  • Rimet F, Gusev E, Kahlert M, Kelly MG, Kulikovskiy M, Maltsev Y, Mann DG, Pfannkuchen M, Trobajo R, Vasselon V, Zimmermann J, Bouchez A (2019) Diat.barcode, an open-access curated barcode library for diatoms. Scientific Reports 9: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51500-6
  • Saiz Salinas JI (1993) Sipuncula. In: Ramos MA et al. (Ed.) Fauna Ibérica (Vol. 4). Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC. Madrid, 200 pp.
  • Saunders GW (2005) Applying DNA barcoding to red macroalgae: a preliminary appraisal holds promise for future applications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 360: 1879–1888. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1719
  • Saunders GW, McDevit DC (2012) Methods for DNA barcoding photosynthetic protists emphasizing the macroalgae and diatoms. In: Kress WJ, Erickson DL (Eds) DNA Barcodes: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology. Humana Press, Totowa, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-591-6_10
  • Schewe J, Heinke J, Gerten D, Haddeland I, Arnell NW, Clark DB, Dankers R, Eisner S, Fekete BM, Colon-Gonzalez FJ, Gosling SN, Kim H, Liu X, Masaki Y, Portmann FT, Satoh Y, Stacke T, Tang Q, Wada Y, Wisser D, Albrecht T, Frieler K, Piontek F, Warszawski L, Kabat P (2014) Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. PNAS 111: 3245–3250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222460110
  • Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, Chen W, Consortium FB (2012) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. PNAS 109: 6241–6246. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117018109
  • Shields MA, Woolf DK, Grist EPM, Kerr SA, Jackson AC, Harris RE, Bell MC, Beharie R, Want A, Osalusi E, Gibb SW, Side J (2011) Marine renewable energy: The ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment. Ocean & Coastal Management 54: 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.036
  • Shih PM, Wu D, Latifi A, Axen SD, Fewer DP, Talla E, Calteau A, Cai F, Marsac NT de, Rippka R, Herdman M, Sivonen K, Coursin T, Laurent T, Goodwin L, Nolan M, Davenport KW, Han CS, Rubin EM, Eisen JA, Woyke T, Gugger M, Kerfeld CA (2013) Improving the coverage of the cyanobacterial phylum using diversity-driven genome sequencing. PNAS 110: 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217107110
  • Siemensma F, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Holzmann M, Clauss S, Völcker E, Pawlowski J (2017) Taxonomic revision of freshwater Foraminifera with the description of two new agglutinated species and genera. European Journal of Protistology 60: 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2017.05.006
  • Skibbe O, Zimmermann J, Kusber WH, Abarca N, Buckó K, Jahn R (2018) Gomphoneis tegelensis sp. nov. (Bacillariophyceae): a morphological and molecular investigation based on selected single cells. Diatom Research 33(2): 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269249X.2018.1518835
  • Steinke D, Prosser SW, Hebert PDN (2016) DNA Barcoding of Marine Metazoans. In: Bourlat SJ (Ed.) Marine Genomics: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology (Vol. 1452). Springer Science+Business Media, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3774-5_10
  • Stock W, Pinseel E, De Decker S, Sefbom J, Blommaert L, Chepurnova O, Sabbe K, Vyverman W (2018) Expanding the toolbox for cryopreservation of marine and freshwater diatoms. Scientific Reports 8: e4279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22460-0
  • The Council of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92 /43 /EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities L 206: 7–50.
  • Usseglio-Polatera P, Bournaud M, Richoux P, Tachet H (2000) Biological and ecological traits of benthic freshwater macroinvertebrates: relationships and definition of groups with similar traits. Freshwater Biology 43: 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2000.00535.x
  • Vivien R, Holzmann M, Werner I, Pawlowski J, Lafont M, Ferrari BJD (2017) Cytochrome c oxidase barcodes for aquatic oligochaete identification: development of a Swiss reference database. PeerJ 5: e4122. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4122
  • Vivien R, Werner I, Ferrari BJD (2018) Simultaneous preservation of the DNA quality, the community composition and the density of aquatic oligochaetes for the development of genetically based biological indices. PeerJ 6: e6050. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6050
  • Vivien R, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Pawlowski J, Werner I, Ferrari BJD (2019) Testing different metabarcoding approaches to assess aquatic oligochaete diversity and the biological quality of sediments. Ecological Indicators 106: e105453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105453
  • Vivien R, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Pawlowski J, Werner I, Lafont M, Ferrari BJD (2020) High-throughput DNA barcoding of oligochaetes for abundance-based indices to assess the biological quality of sediments in streams and lakes. Scientific Reports 10: e2041. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58703-2
  • Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
  • Wells ML, Trainer VL, Smayda TJ, Karlson BSO, Trick CG, Kudela RM, Ishikawa A, Bernard S, Wulff A, Anderson DM, Cochlan WP (2015) Harmful algal blooms and climate change: Learning from the past and present to forecast the future. Harmful Algae 49: 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.07.009
  • Weigand H, Beermann AJ, Čiampor F, Costa FO, Csabai Z, Duarte S, Geiger MF, Grabowski M, Rimet F, Rulik B, Strand M, Szucsich N, Weigand AM, Willassen E, Wyler SA, Bouchez A, Borja A, Čiamporová-Zaťovičová Z, Ferreira S, Dijkstra K-DB, Eisendle U, Freyhof J, Gadawski P, Graf W, Haegerbaeumer A, van der Hoorn BB, Japoshvili B, Keresztes L, Keskin E, Leese F, Macher JN, Mamos T, Paz G, Pešić V, Pfannkuchen DM, Pfannkuchen MA, Price BW, Rinkevich B, Teixeira MAL, Várbíró G, Ekrem T (2019) DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Science of the Total Environment 678: 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247
  • Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J-W, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J, Brookes AJ, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo CT, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AJG, Groth P, Goble C, Grethe JS, Heringa J, Hoen PAC, Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher SJ, Martone ME, Mons A, Packer AL, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P, Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone S-A, Schultes E, Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz MA, Thompson M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J, Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
  • Ward RD (2012) FISH-BOL, A Case Study for DNA Barcodes. In: Kress W, Erickson D (Eds) DNA Barcodes. Methods in Molecular Biology (Methods and Protocols) (Vol 858). Humana Press, Totowa. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-591-6_21
  • Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, Jackson JBC, Lotze HK, Micheli F, Palumbi SR, Sala E, Selkoe KA, Stachowicz JJ, Watson R (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294
  • Zimmermann J, Abarca N, Enke N, Skibbe O, Kusber WH, Jahn R (2014a) Taxonomic reference libraries for environmental barcoding: a best practice example from diatom research. PLoS ONE 9: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108793
  • Zimmermann J, Glöckner G, Jahn R, Enke N, Gemeinholzer B (2014b) Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies. Molecular Ecology Resources 15: 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12336