More than 230,000 known species representing 31 metazoan phyla populate the world's oceans. Perhaps another 1,000,000 or more species remain to be discovered. There is reason for concern that species extinctions may outpace discovery, especially in diverse and endangered marine habitats such as coral reefs. DNA barcodes (i.e., short DNA sequences for species recognition and discrimination) are useful tools to accelerate species-level analysis of marine biodiversity and to facilitate conservation efforts. This review focuses on the usual barcode region for metazoans: a ∼648 base-pair region of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. Barcodes have also been used for population genetic and phylogeographic analysis, identification of prey in gut contents, detection of invasive species, forensics, and seafood safety. More controversially, barcodes have been used to delimit species boundaries, reveal cryptic species, and discover new species. Emerging frontiers are the use of barcodes for rapid and increasingly automated biodiversity assessment by high-throughput sequencing, including environmental barcoding and the use of barcodes to detect species for which formal identification or scientific naming may never be possible.

Wolbachia is a genus of bacterial endosymbionts that impacts the breeding systems of their hosts. Wolbachia can confuse the patterns of mitochondrial variation, including DNA barcodes, because it influences the pathways through which mitochondria are inherited. We examined the extent to which these endosymbionts are detected in routine DNA barcoding, assessed their impact upon the insect sequence divergence and identification accuracy, and considered the variation present in Wolbachia COI. Using both standard PCR assays (Wolbachia surface coding protein – wsp), and bacterial COI fragments we found evidence of Wolbachia in insect total genomic extracts created for DNA barcoding library construction. When >2 million insect COI trace files were examined on the Barcode of Life Datasystem (BOLD) Wolbachia COI was present in 0.16% of the cases. It is possible to generate Wolbachia COI using standard insect primers; however, that amplicon was never confused with the COI of the host. Wolbachia alleles recovered were predominantly Supergroup A and were broadly distributed geographically and phylogenetically. We conclude that the presence of the Wolbachia DNA in total genomic extracts made from insects is unlikely to compromise the accuracy of the DNA barcode library; in fact, the ability to query this DNA library (the database and the extracts) for endosymbionts is one of the ancillary benefits of such a large scale endeavor – for which we provide several examples. It is our conclusion that regular assays for Wolbachia presence and type can, and should, be adopted by large scale insect barcoding initiatives. While COI is one of the five multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) genes used for categorizing Wolbachia, there is limited overlap with the eukaryotic DNA barcode region.

Background: DNA metabarcoding is used to generate species composition data for entire communities. However, sequencing errors in high-throughput sequencing instruments are fairly common, usually requiring reads to be clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs), losing information on intraspecific diversity in the process. While Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) haplotype information is limited in resolving intraspecific diversity it is nevertheless often useful e.g. in a phylogeographic context, helping to formulate hypotheses on taxon distribution and dispersal.Methods: This study combines sequence denoising strategies, normally applied in microbial research, with additional abundance-based filtering to extract haplotype information from freshwater macroinvertebrate metabarcoding datasets. This novel approach was added to the R package “JAMP” and can be applied to COI amplicon datasets. We tested our haplotyping method by sequencing (i) a single-species mock community composed of 31 individuals with 15 different haplotypes spanning three orders of magnitude in biomass and (ii) 18 monitoring samples each amplified with four different primer sets and two PCR replicates.Results: We detected all 15 haplotypes of the single specimens in the mock community with relaxed filtering and denoising settings. However, up to 480 additional unexpected haplotypes remained in both replicates. Rigorous filtering removes most unexpected haplotypes, but also can discard expected haplotypes mainly from the small specimens. In the monitoring samples, the different primer sets detected 177–200 OTUs, each containing an average of 2.40–3.30 haplotypes per OTU. The derived intraspecific diversity data showed population structures that were consistent between replicates and similar between primer pairs but resolution depended on the primer length. A closer look at abundant taxa in the dataset revealed various population genetic patterns, e.g. the stoneflyTaeniopteryx nebulosaand the caddisflyHydropsyche pellucidulashowed a distinct north–south cline with respect to haplotype distribution, while the beetleOulimnius tuberculatusand the isopodAsellus aquaticusdisplayed no clear population pattern but differed in genetic diversity.Discussion: We developed a strategy to infer intraspecific genetic diversity from bulk invertebrate metabarcoding data. It needs to be stressed that at this point this metabarcoding-informed haplotyping is not capable of capturing the full diversity present in such samples, due to variation in specimen size, primer bias and loss of sequence variants with low abundance. Nevertheless, for a high number of species intraspecific diversity was recovered, identifying potentially isolated populations and taxa for further more detailed phylogeographic investigation. While we are currently lacking large-scale metabarcoding datasets to fully take advantage of our new approach, metabarcoding-informed haplotyping holds great promise for biomonitoring efforts that not only seek information about species diversity but also underlying genetic diversity.

Although DNA metabarcoding is an attractive approach for monitoring biodiversity, it is often difficult to detect all the species present in a bulk sample. In particular, sequence recovery for a given species depends on its biomass and mitome copy number as well as the primer set employed for PCR. To examine these variables, we constructed a mock community of terrestrial arthropods comprised of 374 species. We used this community to examine how species recovery was impacted when amplicon pools were constructed in four ways. The first two protocols involved the construction of bulk DNA extracts from different body segments (Bulk Abdomen, Bulk Leg). The other protocols involved the production of DNA extracts from single legs which were then merged prior to PCR (Composite Leg) or PCR‐amplified separately (Single Leg) and then pooled. The amplicons generated by these four treatments were then sequenced on three platforms (Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM and Ion Torrent S5). The choice of sequencing platform did not substantially influence species recovery, although the Miseq delivered the highest sequence quality. As expected, species recovery was most efficient from the Single Leg treatment because amplicon abundance varied little among taxa. Among the three treatments where PCR occurred after pooling, the Bulk Abdomen treatment produced a more uniform read abundance than the Bulk Leg or Composite Leg treatment. Primer choice also influenced species recovery and evenness. Our results reveal how variation in protocols can have substantial impacts on perceived diversity unless sequencing coverage is sufficient to reach an asymptote.