8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The emerging field of environmental DNA (eDNA) research lacks universal guidelines for ensuring data produced are FAIR–findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable–despite growing awareness of the importance of such practices. In order to better understand these data usability challenges, we systematically reviewed 60 peer reviewed articles conducting a specific subset of eDNA research: metabarcoding studies in marine environments. For each article, we characterized approximately 90 features across several categories: general article attributes and topics, methodological choices, types of metadata included, and availability and storage of sequence data. Analyzing these characteristics, we identified several barriers to data accessibility, including a lack of common context and vocabulary across the articles, missing metadata, supplementary information limitations, and a concentration of both sample collection and analysis in the United States. While some of these barriers require significant effort to address, we also found many instances where small choices made by authors and journals could have an outsized influence on the discoverability and reusability of data. Promisingly, articles also showed consistency and creativity in data storage choices as well as a strong trend toward open access publishing. Our analysis underscores the need to think critically about data accessibility and usability as marine eDNA metabarcoding studies, and eDNA projects more broadly, continue to proliferate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

            There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments.

              Currently, a lack of consensus exists on how best to perform and interpret quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) experiments. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of sufficient experimental detail in many publications, which impedes a reader's ability to evaluate critically the quality of the results presented or to repeat the experiments. The Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines target the reliability of results to help ensure the integrity of the scientific literature, promote consistency between laboratories, and increase experimental transparency. MIQE is a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating qPCR experiments. Included is a checklist to accompany the initial submission of a manuscript to the publisher. By providing all relevant experimental conditions and assay characteristics, reviewers can assess the validity of the protocols used. Full disclosure of all reagents, sequences, and analysis methods is necessary to enable other investigators to reproduce results. MIQE details should be published either in abbreviated form or as an online supplement. Following these guidelines will encourage better experimental practice, allowing more reliable and unequivocal interpretation of qPCR results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                peerj
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                24 March 2023
                2023
                : 11
                : e14993
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment & Resources (E-IPER), Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
                [2 ]Earth Systems Program, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
                [3 ]Program in Human Biology, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
                [4 ]Program in Science, Technology and Society, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
                [5 ]Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
                Article
                14993
                10.7717/peerj.14993
                10042160
                36992947
                f2e7a873-a766-4ef7-9837-e2b64d85590e
                ©2023 Shea et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 4 November 2022
                : 12 February 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment & Resources (E-IPER) Summer Research Grant
                Funded by: Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, McGee/Levorsen Research Grant
                Funded by: Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and an E-IPER Sykes Family Fellowship
                This work was supported by an Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment & Resources (E-IPER) Summer Research Grant and a Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences McGee/Levorsen Research Grant. Meghan M. Shea is supported by a Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship and an E-IPER Sykes Family Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Biodiversity
                Ecology
                Ecosystem Science
                Marine Biology
                Molecular Biology

                environmental dna,marine,systematic review,fair data principles,metadata,data storage,metabarcoding,data usability,data accessibility,best practices

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content764

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors2,314