Published October 4, 2024 | Version v1

Benchmarking the discrimination power of commonly used markers and amplicons in marine fish (e)DNA (meta)barcoding

  • 1. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
  • 2. Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

Description

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is revolutionising the study of aquatic ecosystems, enabling high-throughput analysis of biodiversity with minimal disturbance. Despite its potential to support fisheries management, species identification and downstream analysis reliability are hindered by the lack of standardisation in DNA fragment choice. This study compares the species discrimination power of three markers used in marine fish (e)DNA (meta)barcoding – 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) – as well as two amplicons for each. We analysed sequences from NCBI GenBank for 10 orders of Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes), including mitochondrial genomes. We assessed species discrimination by determining the percentage of monophyletic species in Neighbour-Joining trees and calculating congeneric divergences for two datasets: one with genomic regions extracted from mitochondrial genomes (771 species) and another with independent sequences for each region (3,879 species). Amongst (meta)barcoding amplicons in the mitochondrial genomes' dataset, the COI Folmer and Leray-Lobo regions had the highest discriminatory power, with 89.2% and 87.0% monophyletic species, respectively, while the 12S Teleo region had the lowest at 71.6%. Conversely, using independent sequences of these amplicons, Folmer and Leray-Lobo had the lowest percentages of monophyletic species, at 64.8% and 63.5%, respectively, while Actinopterygii 16S (Ac16S) had the highest at 83.0%. Species discrimination is influenced by the marker's evolutionary rate, fragment length, target fish order and the quality of reference sequence data. We recommend considering species discriminatory power differences for amplicon selection, especially for species-level identifications. We advise a standard multi-marker approach under certain scenarios, particularly when the presence of close congeneric species is expected.

Files

MBMG_article_128646.pdf

Files (3.1 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:2e3d7c9fa75a916ec1178605e27863d3
3.1 MB Preview Download

System files (209.5 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:646a93234bcb7592ad638f23e02d7707
209.5 kB Download

Linked records

Additional details

References

  • Açıkbaş AHO, Narisoko H, Huerlimann R, Nishitsuji K, Satoh N, Reimer JD, Ravasi T (2024) Fish and coral assemblages of a highly isolated oceanic island: The first eDNA survey of the Ogasawara Islands. Environmental DNA 6(1): e509. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.509
  • Alexandrino P, Faria R, Linhares D, Castro F, Le Corre M, Sabatié R, Baglinière JL, Weiss S (2006) Interspecific differentiation and intraspecific substructure in two closely related clupeids with extensive hybridization, Alosa alosa and Alosa fallax. Journal of Fish Biology 69(sb): 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01289.x
  • Arranz V, Pearman WS, Aguirre JD, Liggins L (2020) MARES, a replicable pipeline and curated reference database for marine eukaryote metabarcoding. Scientific Data 7(1): 209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0549-9
  • Bayona-Vásquez NJ, Glenn TC, Uribe-Alcocer M, Pecoraro C, Díaz-Jaimes P (2018) Complete mitochondrial genome of the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and the blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus): Notes on mtDNA introgression and paraphyly on tunas. Conservation Genetics Resources 10(4): 697–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0904-0
  • Berry TE, Osterrieder SK, Murray DC, Coghlan ML, Richardson AJ, Grealy AK, Stat M, Bejder L, Bunce M (2017) DNA metabarcoding for diet analysis and biodiversity: A case study using the endangered Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Ecology and Evolution 7(14): 5435–5453. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3123
  • Bodenhofer U, Bonatesta E, Horejš-Kainrath C, Hochreiter S (2015) msa: An R package for multiple sequence alignment. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 31(24): 3997–3999. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv494
  • Buhay JE (2009) "COI-like" sequences are becoming problematic in molecular systematic and DNA barcoding studies. Journal of Crustacean Biology 29(1): 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1651/08-3020.1
  • Bylemans J, Furlan EM, Gleeson DM, Hardy CM, Duncan RP (2018) Does size matter? An experimental evaluation of the relative abundance and decay rates of aquatic environmental DNA. Environmental Science & Technology 52(11): 6408–6416. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01071
  • Cawthorn D-M, Steinman HA, Witthuhn RC (2012) Evaluation of the 16S and 12S rRNA genes as universal markers for the identification of commercial fish species in South Africa. Gene 491(1): 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2011.09.009
  • Chow S, Nakagawa T, Suzuki N, Takeyama H, Matsunaga T (2006) Phylogenetic relationships among Thunnus species inferred from rDNA ITS1 sequence. Journal of Fish Biology 68(A): 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.00945.x
  • Cicala D, Maiello G, Fiorentino F, Garofalo G, Massi D, Sbrana A, Mariani S, D'Alessandro S, Stefani M, Perrodin L, Russo T (2024) Spatial analysis of demersal food webs through integration of eDNA metabarcoding with fishing activities. Frontiers in Marine Science 10: 1209093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1209093
  • Claver C, Canals O, de Amézaga LG, Mendibil I, Rodriguez‐Ezpeleta N (2023) An automated workflow to assess completeness and curate GenBank for environmental DNA metabarcoding: The marine fish assemblage as case study. Environmental DNA 5(4): 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.433
  • Collins RA, Bakker J, Wangensteen OS, Soto AZ, Corrigan L, Sims DW, Genner MJ, Mariani S (2019) Non‐specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(11): 1985–2001. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13276
  • Collins RA, Trauzzi G, Maltby KM, Gibson TI, Ratcliffe FC, Hallam J, Rainbird S, Maclaine J, Henderson PA, Sims DW, Mariani S, Genner MJ (2021) Meta‐Fish‐Lib: A generalised, dynamic DNA reference library pipeline for metabarcoding of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 99(4): 1446–1454. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14852
  • Cordier T, Frontalini F, Cermakova K, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Treglia M, Scantamburlo E, Bonamin V, Pawlowski J (2019) Multi-marker eDNA metabarcoding survey to assess the environmental impact of three offshore gas platforms in the North Adriatic Sea (Italy). Marine Environmental Research 146: 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.12.009
  • De Mandal S, Chhakchhuak L, Gurusubramanian G, Kumar NS (2014) Mitochondrial markers for identification and phylogenetic studies in insects – A Review. DNA Barcodes 2(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/dna-2014-0001
  • Deagle BE, Jarman SN, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Taberlet P (2014) DNA metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: Not a perfect match. Biology Letters 10(9): 20140562. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0562
  • Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, Seymour M, Lacoursière‐Roussel A, Altermatt F, Creer S, Bista I, Lodge DM, De Vere N, Pfrender ME, Bernatchez L (2017) Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology 26(21): 5872–5895. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350
  • Doi H, Fukaya K, Oka SI, Sato K, Kondoh M, Miya M (2019) Evaluation of detection probabilities at the water-filtering and initial PCR steps in environmental DNA metabarcoding using a multispecies site occupancy model. Scientific Reports 9(1): 3581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40233-1
  • Dorado G, Gálvez S, Rosales TE, Vásquez VF, Hernández P (2021) Analyzing modern biomolecules: The revolution of nucleic-acid sequencing – Review. Biomolecules 11(8): 1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11081111
  • Engstrom TN, Shaffer HB, McCord WP (2004) Multiple data sets, high homoplasy, and the phylogeny of softshell turtles (Testudines: Trionychidae). Systematic Biology 53(5): 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490503053
  • Evans NT, Olds BP, Renshaw MA, Turner CR, Li Y, Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Pfrender ME, Lamberti GA, Lodge DM (2016) Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 16(1): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12433
  • Ferreira AO, Azevedo OM, Barroso C, Duarte S, Egas C, Fontes JT, Ré P, Piecho-Santos AM, Costa FO (2024) Multi-marker DNA metabarcoding for precise species identification in ichthyoplankton samples. Scientific Reports 14(1): 19772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69963-7
  • Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3: 294–299.
  • Fontes JT, Vieira PE, Ekrem T, Soares P, Costa FO (2021) BAGS: An automated Barcode, Audit & Grade System for DNA barcode reference libraries. Molecular Ecology Resources 21(2): 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13262
  • Fujii K, Doi H, Matsuoka S, Nagano M, Sato H, Yamanaka H (2019) Environmental DNA metabarcoding for fish community analysis in backwater lakes: A comparison of capture methods. PLoS One 14(1): e0210357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210357
  • García‐Machado E, Laporte M, Normandeau E, Hernández C, Côté G, Paradis Y, Mingelbier M, Bernatchez L (2022) Fish community shifts along a strong fluvial environmental gradient revealed by eDNA metabarcoding. Environmental DNA 4(1): 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.221
  • Gold Z, Sprague J, Kushner DJ, Zerecero Marin E, Barber PH (2021a) eDNA metabarcoding as a biomonitoring tool for marine protected areas. PLoS One 16(2): e0238557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238557
  • Gold Z, Curd EE, Goodwin KD, Choi ES, Frable BW, Thompson AR, Walker Jr HJ, Burton RS, Kacev D, Martz LD, Barber PH (2021b) Improving metabarcoding taxonomic assignment: A case study of fishes in a large marine ecosystem. Molecular Ecology Resources 21(7): 2546–2564. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13450
  • Granger V, Fromentin J-M, Bez N, Relini G, Meynard CN, Gaertner J-C, Maiorano P, Ruiz CG, Follesa C, Gristina M, Peristeraki P (2015) Large-scale spatio-temporal monitoring highlights hotspots of demersal fish diversity in the Mediterranean Sea. Progress in Oceanography 130: 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.10.002
  • Grant DM, Brodnicke OB, Evankow AM, Ferreira AO, Fontes JT, Hansen AK, Jensen MR, Kalaycı TE, Leeper A, Patil SK, Prati S, Reunamo A, Roberts AJ, Shigdel R, Tyukosova V, Bendiksby M, Blaalid R, Costa FO, Hollingsworth PM, Stur E, Ekrem T (2021) The future of DNA barcoding: Reflections from early career researchers. Diversity 13(7): 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13070313
  • Graur D, Li W-H (1997) Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
  • Hajibabaei M, Porter TM, Wright M, Rudar J (2019) COI metabarcoding primer choice affects richness and recovery of indicator taxa in freshwater systems. PLoS One 14(9): e0220953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220953
  • Hallam J, Clare EL, Jones JI, Day JJ (2021) Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environmental DNA 3(6): 1247–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.241
  • Hansen BK, Bekkevold D, Clausen LW, Nielsen EE (2018) The sceptical optimist: Challenges and perspectives for the application of environmental DNA in marine fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 19(5): 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12286
  • Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 270(1512): 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
  • Holstein J (2018) worms: Retriving Aphia Information from World Register of Marine Species. R package version 0.2.2. https://cran.r-project.org/package=worms
  • Jeunen G-J, Knapp M, Spencer HG, Lamare MD, Taylor HR, Stat M, Bunce M, Gemmell NJ (2019) Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reveals strong discrimination among diverse marine habitats connected by water movement. Molecular Ecology Resources 19(2): 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12982
  • Jézéquel C, Tedesco PA, Darwall W, Dias MS, Frederico RG, Hidalgo M, Hugueny B, Maldonado‐Ocampo J, Martens K, Ortega H, Torrente-Vilara G, Zuanon J, Oberdorff T (2020) Freshwater fish diversity hotspots for conservation priorities in the Amazon Basin. Conservation Biology 34(4): 956–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13466
  • Johnson M, Zaretskaya I, Raytselis Y, Merezhuk Y, McGinnis S, Madden TL (2008) NCBI BLAST: A better web interface. Nucleic Acids Research 36(Web Server): W5–W9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn201
  • Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T (2002) MAFFT: A novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Research 30(14): 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkf436
  • Kawato M, Yoshida T, Miya M, Tsuchida S, Nagano Y, Nomura M, Yabuki A, Fujiwara Y, Fujikura K (2021) Optimization of environmental DNA extraction and amplification methods for metabarcoding of deep-sea fish. MethodsX 8: 101238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101238
  • Kiełbasa SM, Wan R, Sato K, Horton P, Frith MC (2011) Adaptive seeds tame genomic sequence comparison. Genome Research 21(3): 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.113985.110
  • Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16(2): 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581
  • Kirse A, Bourlat SJ, Langen K, Fonseca VG (2021) Unearthing the potential of soil eDNA metabarcoding – Towards best practice advice for invertebrate biodiversity assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9: 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.630560
  • Lamy T, Pitz KJ, Chavez FP, Yorke CE, Miller RJ (2021) Environmental DNA reveals the fine-grained and hierarchical spatial structure of kelp forest fish communities. Scientific Reports 11(1): 14439. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93859-5
  • Landi M, Dimech M, Arculeo M, Biondo G, Martins R, Carneiro M, Carvalho GR, Lo Brutto S, Costa FO (2014) DNA barcoding for species assignment: The case of Mediterranean marine fishes. PLoS One 9(9): e106135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106135
  • Lavrador AS, Fontes JT, Vieira PE, Costa FO, Duarte S (2023) Compilation, revision, and annotation of DNA barcodes of marine invertebrate non-indigenous species (NIS) occurring in European coastal regions. Diversity 15(2): 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020174
  • Leray M, Yang JY, Meyer CP, Mills SC, Agudelo N, Ranwez V, Boehm JT, Machida RJ (2013) A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: Application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Frontiers in Zoology 10(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-34
  • Li H, Yang F, Zhang R, Liu S, Yang Z, Lin L, Ye S (2022) Environmental DNA metabarcoding of fish communities in a small hydropower dam reservoir: A comparison between the eDNA approach and established fishing methods. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 37(1): 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2022.2086181
  • Liu M, Clarke LJ, Baker SC, Jordan GJ, Burridge CP (2020) A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists. Ecological Entomology 45(3): 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12831
  • Liu B, Yang J-W, Liu B-S, Zhang N, Guo L, Guo H-Y, Zhang D-C (2022) Detection and identification of marine fish mislabeling in Guangzhou's supermarkets and sushi restaurants using DNA barcoding. Journal of Food Science 87(6): 2440–2449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16150
  • Lobo J, Costa PM, Teixeira MA, Ferreira MS, Costa MH, Costa FO (2013) Enhanced primers for amplification of DNA barcodes from a broad range of marine metazoans. BMC Ecology 13(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-13-34
  • Macher T-H, Schütz R, Yildiz A, Beermann AJ, Leese F (2023) Evaluating five primer pairs for environmental DNA metabarcoding of Central European fish species based on mock communities. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 7: e103856. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.7.103856
  • Machida RJ, Leray M, Ho S-L, Knowlton N (2017) Metazoan mitochondrial gene sequence reference datasets for taxonomic assignment of environmental samples. Scientific Data 4(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.27
  • Marques V, Milhau T, Albouy C, Dejean T, Manel S, Mouillot D, Juhel J (2021) GAPeDNA: Assessing and mapping global species gaps in genetic databases for eDNA metabarcoding. Diversity & Distributions 27(10): 1880–1892. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13142
  • Mathon L, Valentini A, Guérin P-E, Normandeau E, Noel C, Lionnet C, Boulanger E, Thuiller W, Bernatchez L, Mouillot D, Dejean T, Manel S (2021) Benchmarking bioinformatic tools for fast and accurate eDNA metabarcoding species identification. Molecular Ecology Resources 21(7): 2565–2579. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13430
  • McCracken KG, Sorenson MD (2005) Is homoplasy or lineage sorting the source of incongruent mtDNA and nuclear gene trees in the stiff-tailed ducks (Nomonyx-Oxyura)? Systematic Biology 54(1): 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590910249
  • Medina M, Walsh PJ (2000) Molecular systematics of the order Anaspidea based on mitochondrial DNA sequence (12S, 16S, and COI). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 15(1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1999.0736
  • Meglécz E (2023) COInr and mkCOInr: Building and customizing a nonredundant barcoding reference database from BOLD and NCBI using a semi‐automated pipeline. Molecular Ecology Resources 23(4): 933–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13756
  • Meulenbroek P, Hein T, Friedrich T, Valentini A, Erős T, Schabuss M, Zornig H, Lenhardt M, Pekarik L, Jean P, Dejean T, Pont D (2022) Sturgeons in large rivers: Detecting the near-extinct needles in a haystack via eDNA metabarcoding from water samples. Biodiversity and Conservation 31(11): 2817–2832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02459-w
  • Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, Sado T, Poulsen JY, Sato K, Minamoto T, Yamamoto S, Yamanaka H, Araki H, Kondoh M, Iwasaki W (2015) MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science 2(7): 150088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088
  • Miyata T, Yasunaga T, Nishida T (1980) Nucleotide sequence divergence and functional constraint in mRNA evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77(12): 7328–7332. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.77.12.7328
  • Mohanty M, Jayasankar P, Sahoo L, Das P (2015) A comparative study of COI and 16 S rRNA genes for DNA barcoding of cultivable carps in India. Mitochondrial DNA 26(1): 79–87. https://doi.org/10.3109/19401736.2013.823172
  • Oliveira L, Knebelsberger T, Landi M, Soares P, Raupach M, Costa FO (2016) Assembling and auditing a comprehensive DNA barcode reference library for European marine fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 89(6): 2741–2754. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13169
  • Othman N, Haris H, Fatin Z, Najmuddin MF, Sariyati NH, Md-Zain BM, Abdul-Latiff MAB (2021) A review on environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding markers for wildlife monitoring research. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing 736: 012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/736/1/012054
  • Paradis E, Schliep K (2019) ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 35(3): 526–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633
  • Pentinsaari M, Ratnasingham S, Miller SE, Hebert PDN (2020) BOLD and GenBank revisited – Do identification errors arise in the lab or in the sequence libraries? PLoS One 15(4): e0231814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231814
  • Polanco FA, Richards E, Flück B, Valentini A, Altermatt F, Brosse S, Walser J-C, Eme D, Marques V, Manel S (2021) Comparing the performance of 12S mitochondrial primers for fish environmental DNA across ecosystems. Environmental DNA 3(6): 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.232
  • Porter TM, Hajibabaei M (2018) Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing. PLoS One 13(9): e0200177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200177
  • Porter TM, Hajibabaei M (2021) Profile hidden Markov model sequence analysis can help remove putative pseudogenes from DNA barcoding and metabarcoding datasets. BMC Bioinformatics 22(1): 256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04180-x
  • R Core Team (2023) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
  • Rabosky DL, Chang J, Title PO, Cowman PF, Sallan L, Friedman M, Kaschner K, Garilao C, Near TJ, Coll M, Alfaro ME (2018) An inverse latitudinal gradient in speciation rate for marine fishes. Nature 559(7714): 392–395. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0273-1
  • Radulovici AE, Vieira PE, Duarte S, Teixeira MAL, Borges LMS, Deagle BE, Majaneva S, Redmond N, Schultz JA, Costa FO (2021) Revision and annotation of DNA barcode records for marine invertebrates: Report of the 8th iBOL conference hackathon. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 5: e67862. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.5.67862
  • Remec ZI, Trebusak Podkrajsek K, Repic Lampret B, Kovac J, Groselj U, Tesovnik T, Battelino T, Debeljak M (2021) Next-generation sequencing in newborn screening: A review of current state. Frontiers in Genetics 12: 662254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.662254
  • Sato M, Inoue N, Nambu R, Furuichi N, Imaizumi T, Ushio M (2021) Quantitative assessment of multiple fish species around artificial reefs combining environmental DNA metabarcoding and acoustic survey. Scientific Reports 11(1): 19477. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98926-5
  • Sayers EW, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Pruitt KD, Schoch CL, Sherry ST, Karsch-Mizrachi I (2021) GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research 49(D1): D92–D96. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1023
  • Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton CL, Kannan S, Khovanskaya R, Leipe D, Mcveigh R, O'Neill K, Robbertse B, Sharma S, Soussov V, Sullivan JP, Sun L, Turner S, Karsch-Mizrachi I (2020) NCBI Taxonomy: A comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford) 2020: baaa062. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa062
  • Schwery O, O'Meara BC (2016) MonoPhy: A simple R package to find and visualize monophyly issues. PeerJ. Computer Science 2: e56. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.56
  • Scoles DS, Collette BB, Graves JE (1998) Global phylogeography of mackerels of the genus Scomber. Fish Bulletin.
  • Shu L, Ludwig A, Peng Z (2021) Environmental DNA metabarcoding primers for freshwater fish detection and quantification: In silico and in tanks. Ecology and Evolution 11(12): 8281–8294. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7658
  • Stoeckle MY, Adolf J, Charlop-Powers Z, Dunton KJ, Hinks G, VanMorter SM (2021) Trawl and eDNA assessment of marine fish diversity, seasonality, and relative abundance in coastal New Jersey, USA. ICES Journal of Marine Science 78(1): 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa225
  • Stuart-Smith RD, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS, Duffy JE, Baker SC, Thomson RJ, Stuart-Smith JF, Hill NA, Kininmonth SJ, Airoldi L, Becerro MA, Campbell SJ, Dawson TP, Navarrete SA, Soler GA, Strain EMA, Willis TJ, Edgar GJ (2013) Integrating abundance and functional traits reveals new global hotspots of fish diversity. Nature 501(7468): 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12529
  • Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Brochmann C, Willerslev E (2012) Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 21(8): 2045–2050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05470.x
  • Taillebois L, Sabatino S, Manicki A, Daverat F, Nachón DJ, Lepais O (2020) Variable outcomes of hybridization between declining Alosa alosa and Alosa fallax. Evolutionary Applications 13(4): 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12889
  • Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S (2021) MEGA11: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Molecular Biology and Evolution 38(7): 3022–3027. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab120
  • Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22(22): 4673–4680. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/22.22.4673
  • Trucco MI, Buratti CC (2017) Taxonomic review of Argentine mackerel Scomber japonicus (Houttuyn, 1782) by phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology Research Communications 6: 141. https://doi.org/10.22099/mbrc.2017.25981.1276
  • Tsuji S, Takahara T, Doi H, Shibata N, Yamanaka H (2019) The detection of aquatic macroorganisms using environmental DNA analysis – A review of methods for collection, extraction, and detection. Environmental DNA 1(2): 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.21
  • Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF, Bellemain E, Besnard A, Coissac E, Boyer F, Gaboriaud C, Jean P, Poulet N, Roset N, Copp GH, Geniez P, Pont D, Argillier C, Baudoin J, Peroux T, Crivelli AJ, Olivier A, Acqueberge M, Le Brun M, Møller PR, Willerslev E, Dejean T (2016) Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 25(4): 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428
  • Wang S, Yan Z, Hänfling B, Zheng X, Wang P, Fan J, Li J (2021) Methodology of fish eDNA and its applications in ecology and environment. The Science of the Total Environment 755: 142622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142622
  • Ward RD, Holmes BH (2007) An analysis of nucleotide and amino acid variability in the barcode region of cytochrome c oxidase I (cox1) in fishes. Molecular Ecology Notes 7(6): 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01886.x
  • Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, Hebert PDN (2005) DNA barcoding Australia's fish species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 1847–1857. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01886.x
  • 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 KB, 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. The Science of the Total Environment 678: 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247
  • West K, Travers MJ, Stat M, Harvey ES, Richards ZT, DiBattista JD, Newman SJ, Harry A, Skepper CL, Heydenrych M, Bunce M (2021) Large‐scale eDNA metabarcoding survey reveals marine biogeographic break and transitions over tropical north‐western Australia. Diversity & Distributions 27(10): 1942–1957. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13228
  • WoRMS Editorial Board (2023) World Register of Marine Species. https://doi.org/10.14284/170 [Accessed 2023-04-05]
  • Xia X (2020) Improving Phylogenetic Signals of Mitochondrial Genes Using a New Method of Codon Degeneration. Life (Basel, Switzerland) 10(9): 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10090171
  • Xiong F, Shu L, Zeng H, Gan X, He S, Peng Z (2022) Methodology for fish biodiversity monitoring with environmental DNA metabarcoding: The primers, databases and bioinformatic pipelines. Water Biology and Security 1(1): 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2022.100007
  • Zafeiropoulos H, Gargan L, Hintikka S, Pavloudi C, Carlsson J (2021) The Dark mAtteR iNvestigator (DARN) tool: Getting to know the known unknowns in COI amplicon data. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 3968: e69657. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.5.69657
  • Zhang S, Zhao J, Yao M (2020) A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11(12): 1609–1625. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13485