Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Miwa Takahashi

Publications and source records attributed to Miwa Takahashi.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

A metadata checklist and data formatting guidelines to make eDNA FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable)

The success of environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches for species detection has revolutionized biodiversity monitoring and distribution mapping. Targeted eDNA amplification approaches, such as quantitative PCR, have improved our understanding of species distribution, and metabarcoding-based approaches have enabled biodiversity assessment at unprecedented scales and taxonomic resolution. eDNA datasets, however, are often scattered across repositories with inconsistent formats, varying access restrictions, and inadequate metadata; this limits their interoperation, reuse, and overall impact. Adopting FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data practices with eDNA data can transform the monitoring of biodiversity and individual species and support data-driven biodiversity management across broad scales. FAIR practices remain underdeveloped in the eDNA community, partly due to gaps in adapting existing vocabularies, such as Darwin Core (DwC) and Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence (MIxS), to eDNA-specific needs and workflows. To address these challenges, we propose a comprehensive FAIR eDNA (FAIRe) Metadata Checklist, which integrates existing data standards and introduces new terms tailored to eDNA workflows. Metadata are systematically linked to both raw data (e.g., metabarcoding sequences, Ct/Cq values of targeted qPCR assays) and derived biological observations (e.g., Amplicon Sequence Variant (ASV)/Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) tables, species presence/absence). Along with formatting guidelines, tools, templates, and example datasets, we introduce a standardized, ready-to-use approach for FAIR eDNA practices. Through broad collaboration, we seek to integrate these guidelines into established biodiversity and molecular data standards, promote journal data policies, and foster user-driven improvements and uptake of FAIR practices among eDNA data producers. In proposing this standardized approach and developing a long-term plan with key databases and data standard organizations, the goal is to enhance accessibility, maximize reuse, and elevate the scientific impact of these valuable biodiversity data resources.

Environmental DNA

What is eDNA method standardization and why do we need it?

The rapid advancement of environmental DNA ( eDNA ) science in the past two decades has inspired a concomitant growth in the development of eDNA sampling and analytical methods. However, these methods are often developed by individual laboratories or institutions, which can isolate protocols within programmes, agencies or regions and prevent the beneficial exchange of data and ideas. Recent efforts to advance national and international coordination have resulted in a groundswell of standardisation efforts, but there is still considerable confusion around the role of formal standards for regulatory or research applications. With this commentary, we hope to provide clarity on the terminology used in standardisation discussions, including the differences between formal standards and best practice guidelines. Additionally, we discuss how eDNA method choice may be informed by environmental management scenarios and review examples of formal eDNA method standards being used to inform management action. The eDNA community now has an opportunity to develop a roadmap for method development to help close standardisation gaps, advance eDNA method adoption and accelerate our ability to monitor biological life at the scales our current environmental challenges demand.

Metabarcoding and Metagenomics

The MIEM guidelines: Minimum information for reporting of environmental metabarcoding data

Environmental DNA ( eDNA ) and RNA ( eRNA ) metabarcoding has become a popular tool for assessing biodiversity from environmental samples, but inconsistent documentation of methods, data and metadata makes results difficult to reproduce and synthesise. A working group of scientists have collaborated to produce a set of minimum reporting guidelines for the constituent steps of metabarcoding workflows, from the physical layout of laboratories through to data archiving. We emphasise how reporting the suite of data and metadata should adhere to findable, accessible, interoperable and reproducible ( FAIR ) data standards, thereby providing context for evaluating and understanding study results. An overview of the documentation considerations for each workflow step is presented and then summarised in a checklist that can accompany a published study or report. Ensuring workflows are transparent and documented is critical to reproducible research and should allow for more efficient uptake of metabarcoding data into management decision-making.

Metabarcoding and Metagenomics