Bedbugs evolved before their bat hosts and did not co-speciate with ancient humans

All 100+ bedbug species (Cimicidae) are obligate blood-sucking parasites [1, 2]. In general, blood sucking (hematophagy) is thought to have evolved in generalist feeders adventitiously taking blood meals [3, 4], but those cimicid taxa currently considered ancestral are putative host specialists [1, 5]. Bats are believed to be the ancestral hosts of cimicids [1], but a cimicid fossil [6] predates the oldest known bat fossil [7] by >30 million years (Ma). The bedbugs that parasitize humans [1, 8] are host generalists, so their evolution from specialist ancestors is incompatible with the "resource efficiency" hypothesis and only partially consistent with the "oscillation" hypothesis [9-16]. Because quantifying host shift frequencies of hematophagous specialists and generalists may help to predict host associations when vertebrate ranges expand by climate change [17], livestock, and pet trade in general and because of the previously proposed role of human pre-history in parasite speciation [18-20], we constructed a fossil-dated, molecular phylogeny of the Cimicidae. This phylogeny places ancestral Cimicidae to 115 mya as hematophagous specialists with lineages that later frequently populated bat and bird lineages. We also found that the clades, including the two major current urban pests, Cimex lectularius and C. hemipterus, separated 47 mya, rejecting the notion that the evolutionary trajectories of Homo caused their divergence [18-21]

DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work

Effective identification of species using short DNA fragments (DNA barcoding and DNA metabarcoding) requires reliable sequence reference libraries of known taxa. Both taxonomically comprehensive coverage and content quality are important for sufficient accuracy. For aquatic ecosystems in Europe, reliable barcode reference libraries are particularly important if molecular identification tools are to be implemented in biomonitoring and reports in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). We analysed gaps in the two most important reference databases, Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) and NCBI GenBank, with a focus on the taxa most frequently used in WFD and MSFD. Our analyses show that coverage varies strongly among taxonomic groups, and among geographic regions. In general, groups that were actively targeted in barcode projects (e.g. fish, true bugs, caddisflies and vascular plants) are well represented in the barcode libraries, while others have fewer records (e.g. marine molluscs, ascidians, and freshwater diatoms). We also found that species monitored in several countries often are represented by barcodes in reference libraries, while species monitored in a single country frequently lack sequence records. A large proportion of species (up to 50%) in several taxonomic groups are only represented by private data in BOLD. Our results have implications for the future strategy to fill existing gaps in barcode libraries, especially if DNA metabarcoding is to be used in the monitoring of European aquatic biota under the WFD and MSFD. For example, missing species relevant to monitoring in multiple countries should be prioritized for future collaborative programs. We also discuss why a strategy for quality control and quality assurance of barcode reference libraries is needed and recommend future steps to ensure full utilisation of metabarcoding in aquatic biomonitoring.This paper is a deliverable of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action DNAqua-Net (CA15219) Working Group 1, led by Torbjørn Ekrem and Fedor Čiampor. Thanks to the University of Minho and University of Pécs for hosting workshops and working group meetings. We also thank staff at National Environment Agencies and others that provided national checklists of taxa used in biomonitoring, and otherwise assisted with checklist proof-reading: Jarmila Makovinská and Emília Mišíková Elexová (Slovakia); Steinar Sandøy and Dag Rosland (Norway); Mišel Jelič (Croatia); Marlen Vasquez (Cyprus); Adam Petrusek (Czech Republic); Kristel Panksep (Estonia); Panagiotis Kaspiditis (Greece); Matteo Montagna (Italy); Marija Katarzyte (Lithuania); Ana Rotter (Slovenia); Rosa Trabajo (Spain); Florian Altermatt (Switzerland); Kristian Meissner (Finland), Rigers Bakiu (Albania), Valentina Stamenkovic and Jelena Hinic (Macedonia); Patricia Mergen (Belgium); Gael Denys & the French Biodiversity Agency (France); Mary Kelly-Quinn (Ireland); Piotr Panek and Andrzej Zawal (Poland); Cesare Mario Puzzi (Italy); Carole Fitzpatrick (United Kingdom); Simon Vitecek (Austria); Ana Filipa Filipe (Portugal); Peter Anton Stæhr & Anne Winding (Denmark); Michael Monaghan (Germany); Alain Dohet, Lionel L'Hoste, Nora Welschbillig & Luc Ector (Luxembourg), Lujza Keresztes, (Romania). The authors also want to thank Dirk Steinke for providing the original European ERMS list for marine taxa and Florian Malard for comments on the manuscript. The preparation of the AMBI checklist was carried out in the scope of a Short-term Scientific Mission (ECOST-STSM-CA15219-150217- 082111) granted to SD visiting AZTI, Spain. ZC was supported by grants EFOP-3.6.1.-16-2016-00004 and 20765-3/2018/FEKUTSTRAT. TE was supported by the NorBOL-grant (226134/F50) from the Research Coun cil of Norway. BR, FL and MFG contributed through support from the GBOL project, which is generously funded by the German Federal Min istry of Education and Research (FKZ 01LI1101 and 01LI1501). MG contributed through support of the Polish National Science Centre, grants N N303 5794 39 and 2014/15/B/NZ8/00266. SF was funded by the project PORBIOTA - Portuguese E-Infrastructure for Information and Research on Biodiversity (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-022127), supported by Operational Thematic Program for Competitiveness and Internationalization (POCI), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)

Supplementary Material for: Prediction, Microarray and Northern Blot Analyses Identify New Intergenic Small RNAs in <b><i>Aliivibrio salmonicida</i></b>

Bacterial small RNAs (sRNAs) are <i>trans</i>-encoded regulatory RNAs that typically bind mRNAs by short-sequence complementarities and change the expression of the corresponding proteins. Some of the well-characterized sRNAs serve critical steps in the regulation of important cellular processes, such as quorum sensing (Qrr), iron homeostasis (RyhB), oxidative stress (OxyS), and carbon metabolism (Spot 42). However, many sRNAs remain to be identified, and the functional roles of sRNAs are known for only a small fraction. For example, of the hundreds of candidate sRNAs from members of the bacterial family Vibrionaceae, the function is known for only 9. We have in this study significantly contributed to the discovery and verification of new sRNAs in a representative of Vibrionaceae, i.e. the <i>Aliivibrio salmonicida</i>, which causes severe disease in farmed Atlantic salmon and other fishes. A computational search for intergenic non-coding (nc) RNAs in the 4.6-Mb genome identified a total of 252 potential ncRNAs (including 233 putative sRNAs). Depending on the set threshold value for fluorescence signal in our microarray approach, we identified 50–80 putative ncRNAs, 12 of which were verified by Northern blot analysis. In total, we identified 9 new sRNAs

Recommendations for connecting molecular sequence and biodiversity research infrastructures through ELIXIR

Threats to global biodiversity are increasingly recognised by scientists and the public as a critical challenge. Molecular sequencing technologies offer means to catalogue, explore, and monitor the richness and biogeography of life on Earth. However, exploiting their full potential requires tools that connect biodiversity infrastructures and resources. As a research infrastructure developing services and technical solutions that help integrate and coordinate life science resources across Europe, ELIXIR is a key player. To identify opportunities, highlight priorities, and aid strategic thinking, here we survey approaches by which molecular technologies help inform understanding of biodiversity. We detail example use cases to highlight how DNA sequencing is: resolving taxonomic issues; Increasing knowledge of marine biodiversity; helping understand how agriculture and biodiversity are critically linked; and playing an essential role in ecological studies. Together with examples of national biodiversity programmes, the use cases show where progress is being made but also highlight common challenges and opportunities for future enhancement of underlying technologies and services that connect molecular and wider biodiversity domains. Based on emerging themes, we propose key recommendations to guide future funding for biodiversity research: biodiversity and bioinformatic infrastructures need to collaborate closely and strategically; taxonomic efforts need to be aligned and harmonised across domains; metadata needs to be standardised and common data management approaches widely adopted; current approaches need to be scaled up dramatically to address the anticipated explosion of molecular data; bioinformatics support for biodiversity research needs to be enabled and sustained; training for end users of biodiversity research infrastructures needs to be prioritised; and community initiatives need to be proactive and focused on enabling solutions. For sequencing data to deliver their full potential they must be connected to knowledge: together, molecular sequence data collection initiatives and biodiversity research infrastructures can advance global efforts to prevent further decline of Earth's biodiversity

On the Scientific Maturity of Digital Forensics Research

Part 1: THEMES AND ISSUESInternational audienceThis paper applies a scientific maturity grade schema from the software engineering domain to research in the field of digital forensics. On the basis of this maturity schema and its grades, the paper classifies the current maturity of digital forensics research. The findings show that much more research conducted at higher levels of “scientificness” is necessary before the new field of digital forensics can be considered to be scientifically mature