Fundamental research questions in subterranean biology

Five decades ago, a landmark paper inSciencetitledThe Cave Environmentheralded caves as ideal natural experimental laboratories in which to develop and address general questions in geology, ecology, biogeography, and evolutionary biology. Although the 'caves as laboratory' paradigm has since been advocated by subterranean biologists, there are few examples of studies that successfully translated their results into general principles. The contemporary era of big data, modelling tools, and revolutionary advances in genetics and (meta)genomics provides an opportunity to revisit unresolved questions and challenges, as well as examine promising new avenues of research in subterranean biology. Accordingly, we have developed a roadmap to guide future research endeavours in subterranean biology by adapting a well-established methodology of 'horizon scanning' to identify the highest priority research questions across six subject areas. Based on the expert opinion of 30 scientists from around the globe with complementary expertise and of different academic ages, we assembled an initial list of 258 fundamental questions concentrating on macroecology and microbial ecology, adaptation, evolution, and conservation. Subsequently, through online surveys, 130 subterranean biologists with various backgrounds assisted us in reducing our list to 50 top-priority questions. These research questions are broad in scope and ready to be addressed in the next decade. We believe this exercise will stimulate research towards a deeper understanding of subterranean biology and foster hypothesis-driven studies likely to resonate broadly from the traditional boundaries of this field.Peer reviewe

Potential efficacy of mitochondrial genes for animal DNA barcoding: a case study using eutherian mammals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A well-informed choice of genetic locus is central to the efficacy of DNA barcoding. Current DNA barcoding in animals involves the use of the 5' half of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 gene (<it>CO1</it>) to diagnose and delimit species. However, there is no compelling <it>a priori </it>reason for the exclusive focus on this region, and it has been shown that it performs poorly for certain animal groups. To explore alternative mitochondrial barcoding regions, we compared the efficacy of the universal <it>CO1 </it>barcoding region with the other mitochondrial protein-coding genes in eutherian mammals. Four criteria were used for this comparison: the number of recovered species, sequence variability within and between species, resolution to taxonomic levels above that of species, and the degree of mutational saturation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 1,179 mitochondrial genomes of eutherians, we found that the universal <it>CO1 </it>barcoding region is a good representative of mitochondrial genes as a whole because the high species-recovery rate (> 90%) was similar to that of other mitochondrial genes, and there were no significant differences in intra- or interspecific variability among genes. However, an overlap between intra- and interspecific variability was still problematic for all mitochondrial genes. Our results also demonstrated that any choice of mitochondrial gene for DNA barcoding failed to offer significant resolution at higher taxonomic levels.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We suggest that the <it>CO1 </it>barcoding region, the universal DNA barcode, is preferred among the mitochondrial protein-coding genes as a molecular diagnostic at least for eutherian species identification. Nevertheless, DNA barcoding with this marker may still be problematic for certain eutherian taxa and our approach can be used to test potential barcoding loci for such groups.</p

Brazilian cave heritage under siege

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe