Search

Genetic data represent a relatively new frontier for our understanding of global biodiversity. Ideally, such data should include both organismal DNA‐based genotypes and the ecological context where the organisms were sampled. Yet most tools and standards for data deposition focus exclusively either on genetic or ecological attributes. The Genomic Observatories Metadatabase (GEOME: geome‐db.org) provides an intuitive solution for maintaining links between genetic data sets stored by the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC) and their associated ecological metadata. GEOME facilitates the deposition of raw genetic data to INSDCs sequence read archive (SRA) while maintaining persistent links to standards‐compliant ecological metadata held in the GEOME database. This approach facilitates findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data archival practices. Moreover, GEOME enables data management solutions for large collaborative groups and expedites batch retrieval of genetic data from the SRA. The article that follows describes how GEOME can enable genuinely open data workflows for researchers in the field of molecular ecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: DNA‐based techniques are increasingly used for measuring the biodiversity (species presence, identity, abundance and community composition) of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. While there are numerous reviews of molecular methods and bioinformatic steps, there has been little consideration of the methods used to collect samples upon which these later steps are based. This represents a critical knowledge gap, as methodologically sound field sampling is the foundation for subsequent analyses. We reviewed field sampling methods used for metabarcoding studies of both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem biodiversity over a nearly three‐year period (n = 75). We found that 95% (n = 71) of these studies used subjective sampling methods and inappropriate field methods and/or failed to provide critical methodological information. It would be possible for researchers to replicate only 5% of the metabarcoding studies in our sample, a poorer level of reproducibility than for ecological studies in general. Our findings suggest greater attention to field sampling methods, and reporting is necessary in eDNA‐based studies of biodiversity to ensure robust outcomes and future reproducibility. Methods must be fully and accurately reported, and protocols developed that minimize subjectivity. Standardization of sampling protocols would be one way to help to improve reproducibility and have additional benefits in allowing compilation and comparison of data from across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]