skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Updating splits, lumps, and shuffles: Reconciling GenBank names with standardized avian taxonomies
Abstract Biodiversity research has advanced by testing expectations of ecological and evolutionary hypotheses through the linking of large-scale genetic, distributional, and trait datasets. The rise of molecular systematics over the past 30 years has resulted in a wealth of DNA sequences from around the globe. Yet, advances in molecular systematics also have created taxonomic instability, as new estimates of evolutionary relationships and interpretations of species limits have required widespread scientific name changes. Taxonomic instability, colloquially “splits, lumps, and shuffles,” presents logistical challenges to large-scale biodiversity research because (1) the same species or sets of populations may be listed under different names in different data sources, or (2) the same name may apply to different sets of populations representing different taxonomic concepts. Consequently, distributional and trait data are often difficult to link directly to primary DNA sequence data without extensive and time-consuming curation. Here, we present RANT: Reconciliation of Avian NCBI Taxonomy. RANT applies taxonomic reconciliation to standardize avian taxon names in use in NCBI GenBank, a primary source of genetic data, to a widely used and regularly updated avian taxonomy: eBird/Clements. Of 14,341 avian species/subspecies names in GenBank, 11,031 directly matched an eBird/Clements; these link to more than 6 million nucleotide sequences. For the remaining unmatched avian names in GenBank, we used Avibase’s system of taxonomic concepts, taxonomic descriptions in Cornell’s Birds of the World, and DNA sequence metadata to identify corresponding eBird/Clements names. Reconciled names linked to more than 600,000 nucleotide sequences, ~9% of all avian sequences on GenBank. Nearly 10% of eBird/Clements names had nucleotide sequences listed under 2 or more GenBank names. Our taxonomic reconciliation is a first step towards rigorous and open-source curation of avian GenBank sequences and is available at GitHub, where it can be updated to correspond to future annual eBird/Clements taxonomic updates.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1655683
PAR ID:
10451918
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Ornithology
Volume:
139
Issue:
4
ISSN:
0004-8038
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, Zenodo)
    Introduction This archive includes a tab-delimited (tsv) and comma-delimited (csv) version of the Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Discover Life is an important resource for bee species names and this update is from Draft-55, November 2020. Data were accessed and transformed into a tsv file in August 2023 using Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI) nomer software. GloBI now incorporates the Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist in its functionality for searching for bee interactions. Update! New Dataset also includes Subgenera Names A new, tab-delimited version of the Discover Life taxonomy as derived from Dorey et. al, 2023 can be found via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10463762. This version of the Discover Life world species guide and checklist includes subgeneric names. Citation Please cite the original source for this data as: Ascher, J. S. and J. Pickering. 2022.Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila).http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Apoidea_species Draft-56, 21 August, 2022 nomer nomer is a command-line application for working with taxonomic resources offline. nomer incorporates many of the present taxonomic catalogs (e.g., catalog of life, ITIS, EOL, NCBI) and provides simple tools for comparing between resources or resolving taxonomic names based on one or more taxonomic name catalogs. Discover Life is in nomer version 0.5.1 and this full dataset can be recreated by installing nomer from https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/nomer and running $ nomer list discoverlife > discoverlife.tsv Data Columns Discover Life provides a world name checklist and includes other names (synonyms and homonyms) that refer to the same species. In the tsv file, the provided name is both the accepted, or checklist name, or "other name." All names will be listed as a providedName. Below is an example subset of the transformed version of the data. providedExternalId= link to name on Discover Life providedName=an accepted or "other name" in the Discover Life bee checklist. "Other names" can be synonyms or homonyms. providedAuthorship=authorship for the providedName providedRank=rank of the providedName providedPath=higher taxonomy of the providedName. This will be the same as the accepted name or resolvedName relationName=relationship between the "other name" and the bee name in the Discover Life checklist. It may include itself resolvedExternalID=an accepted name in the Discover Life bee checklist resolvedExternalId=link to name on Discover Life resolvedAuthorship=authorship of the accepted, or checklist name resolvedRank=rank of the accepted, or checklist name resolvedPath=higher taxonomy of the accepted, or checklist name Changes No major changes to format in this version. References Jorrit Poelen, & José Augusto Salim. (2022). globalbioticinteractions/nomer: (0.2.11). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6128011 Poelen JH, Simons JD and Mungall CH. (2014). Global Biotic Interactions: An open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.005. Seltmann KC, Allen J, Brown BV, Carper A, Engel MS, Franz N, Gilbert E, Grinter C, Gonzalez VH, Horsley P, Lee S, Maier C, Miko I, Morris P, Oboyski P, Pierce NE, Poelen J, Scott VL, Smith M, Talamas EJ, Tsutsui ND, Tucker E (2021) Announcing Big-Bee: An initiative to promote understanding of bees through image and trait digitization. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 5: e74037. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.74037 Dorey, J.B., Fischer, E.E., Chesshire, P.R. et al. A globally synthesised and flagged bee occurrence dataset and cleaning workflow. Sci Data 10, 747 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02626-w 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Insect Systematics and Diversity)
    Abstract Classification of the biological diversity on Earth is foundational to all areas of research within the natural sciences. Reliable biological nomenclatural and taxonomic systems facilitate efficient access to information about organisms and their names over time. However, broadly sharing, accessing, delivering, and updating these resources remains a persistent problem. This barrier has been acknowledged by the biodiversity data sharing community, yet concrete efforts to standardize and continually update taxonomic names in a sustainable way remain limited. High diversity groups such as arthropods are especially challenging as available specimen data per number of species is substantially lower than vertebrate or plant groups. The Terrestrial Parasite Tracker Thematic Collections Network project developed a workflow for gathering expert-verified taxonomic names across all available sources, aligning those sources, and publishing a single resource that provides a model for future endeavors to standardize digital specimen identification data. The process involved gathering expert-verified nomenclature lists representing the full taxonomic scope of terrestrial arthropod parasites, documenting issues experienced, and finding potential solutions for reconciliation of taxonomic resources against large data publishers. Although discordance between our expert resources and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility are relatively low, the impact across all taxa affects thousands of names that correspond to hundreds of thousands of specimen records. Here, we demonstrate a mechanism for the delivery and continued maintenance of these taxonomic resources, while highlighting the current state of taxon name curation for biodiversity data sharing. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; (, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    Making the most of biodiversity data requires linking observations of biological species from multiple sources both efficiently and accurately (Bisby 2000, Franz et al. 2016). Aggregating occurrence records using taxonomic names and synonyms is computationally efficient but known to experience significant limitations on accuracy when the assumption of one-to-one relationships between names and biological entities breaks down (Remsen 2016, Franz and Sterner 2018). Taxonomic treatments and checklists provide authoritative information about the correct usage of names for species, including operational representations of the meanings of those names in the form of range maps, reference genetic sequences, or diagnostic traits. They increasingly provide taxonomic intelligence in the form of precise description of the semantic relationships between different published names in the literature. Making this authoritative information Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR; Wilkinson et al. 2016) would be a transformative advance for biodiversity data sharing and help drive adoption and novel extensions of existing standards such as the Taxonomic Concept Schema and the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Kennedy et al. 2006, Senderov et al. 2018). We call for the greater, global Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) and taxonomy community to commit to extending and expanding on how FAIR applies to biodiversity data and include practical targets and criteria for the publication and digitization of taxonomic concept representations and alignments in taxonomic treatments, checklists, and backbones. As a motivating case, consider the abundantly sampled North American deer mouse— Peromyscus maniculatus (Wagner 1845)—which was recently split from one continental species into five more narrowly defined forms, so that the name P. maniculatus is now only applied east of the Mississippi River (Bradley et al. 2019, Greenbaum et al. 2019). That single change instantly rendered ambiguous ~7% of North American mammal records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (n=242,663, downloaded 2021-06-04; GBIF.org 2021) and ⅓ of all National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) small mammal samples (n=10,256, downloaded 2021-06-27). While this type of ambiguity is common in name-based databases when species are split, the example of P. maniculatus is particularly striking for its impact upon biological questions ranging from hantavirus surveillance in North America to studies of climate change impacts upon rodent life-history traits. Of special relevance to NEON sampling is recent evidence suggesting deer mice potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 (Griffin et al. 2021). Automating the updating of occurrence records in such cases and others will require operational representations of taxonomic concepts—e.g., range maps, reference sequences, and diagnostic traits—that are FAIR in addition to taxonomic concept alignment information (Franz and Peet 2009). Despite steady progress, it remains difficult to find, access, and reuse authoritative information about how to apply taxonomic names even when it is already digitized. It can also be difficult to tell without manual inspection whether similar types of concept representations derived from multiple sources, such as range maps or reference sequences selected from different research articles or checklists, are in fact interoperable for a particular application. The issue is therefore different from important ongoing efforts to digitize trait information in species circumscriptions, for example, and focuses on how already digitized knowledge can best be packaged to inform human experts and artifical intelligence applications (Sterner and Franz 2017). We therefore propose developing community guidelines and criteria for FAIR taxonomic concept representations as "semantic artefacts" of general relevance to linked open data and life sciences research (Le Franc et al. 2020). 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)
    null (Ed.)
    “What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals to use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020). 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Oliveira, Pedro L. (Ed.)
    Scientific collections such as the U.S. National Museum (USNM) are critical to filling knowledge gaps in molecular systematics studies. The global taxonomic impediment has resulted in a reduction of expert taxonomists generating new collections of rare or understudied taxa and these large historic collections may be the only reliable source of material for some taxa. Integrated systematics studies using both morphological examinations and DNA sequencing are often required for resolving many taxonomic issues but as DNA methods often require partial or complete destruction of a sample, there are many factors to consider before implementing destructive sampling of specimens within scientific collections. We present a methodology for the use of archive specimens that includes two crucial phases: 1) thoroughly documenting specimens destined for destructive sampling—a process called electronic vouchering, and 2) the pipeline used for whole genome sequencing of archived specimens, from extraction of genomic DNA to assembly of putative genomes with basic annotation. The process is presented for eleven specimens from two different insect subfamilies of medical importance to humans: Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae)—mosquitoes and Triatominae (Hemiptera: Reduviidae)—kissing bugs. Assembly of whole mitochondrial genome sequences of all 11 specimens along with the results of an ortholog search and BLAST against the NCBI nucleotide database are also presented. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email