Topic
BioCode
About: BioCode is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 37 publications have been published within this topic receiving 762 citations. The topic is also known as: Draft BioCode.
Papers
Complutense University of Madrid1, Natural History Museum2, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures3, University of California, Berkeley4, University of Pretoria5, Ege University6, Louisiana State University7, Trakya University8, Ruhr University Bochum9, Anadolu University10, Landcare Research11, Murdoch University12, Medical University of Graz13, Royal Botanic Gardens14, University of Sydney15, Université catholique de Louvain16, Vienna University of Technology17, University of Nottingham18, University of Miami19, Technical University of Denmark20, Pennsylvania State University21, Leiden University22, Federal University of Paraná23, Canadian Grain Commission24, Wageningen University and Research Centre25, Clark University26, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences27, Field Museum of Natural History28, Istanbul University29, CABI30, University of Tartu31, United States Department of Agriculture32, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign33, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences34, Russian Academy of Sciences35, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences36, Celal Bayar University37, Goethe University Frankfurt38, University of Szeged39, University of Antioquia40
TL;DR: The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature recognizes the need for an orderly transitition to a single-name nomenclatural system for all fungi, and to provide mechanisms to protect names that otherwise then become endangered.
Abstract: The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature was agreed at an international symposium convened in Amsterdam on 19–20 April 2011 under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). The purpose of the symposium was to address the issue of whether or how the current system of naming pleomorphic fungi should be maintained or changed now that molecular data are routinely available. The issue is urgent as mycologists currently follow different practices, and no consensus was achieved by a Special Committee appointed in 2005 by the International Botanical Congress to advise on the problem. The Declaration recognizes the need for an orderly transitition to a single-name nomenclatural system for all fungi, and to provide mechanisms to protect names that otherwise then become endangered. That is, meaning that priority should be given to the first described name, except where that is a younger name in general use when the first author to select a name of a pleomorphic monophyletic genus is to be followed, and suggests controversial cases are referred to a body, such as the ICTF, which will report to the Committee for Fungi. If appropriate, the ICTF could be mandated to promote the implementation of the Declaration. In addition, but not forming part of the Declaration, are reports of discussions held during the symposium on the governance of the nomenclature of fungi, and the naming of fungi known only from an environmental nucleic acid sequence in particular. Possible amendments to the Draft BioCode (2011) to allow for the needs of mycologists are suggested for further consideration, and a possible example of how a fungus only known from the environment might be described is presented.
393 citations
TL;DR: This study demonstrates that the COI sequence library of the Moorea BIOCODE project enables the identification of a large proportion of semi-digested fish, crustacean and mollusks found in the guts of three Hawkfish and two Squirrelfish species.
Abstract: Identifying species involved in consumer- resource interactions is one of the main limitations in the construction of food webs. DNA barcoding of prey items in predator guts provides a valuable tool for characterizing trophic interactions, but the method relies on the avail- ability of reference sequences to which prey sequences can be matched. In this study, we demonstrate that the COI sequence library of the Moorea BIOCODE project, an ecosystem-level barcode initiative, enables the identifi- cation of a large proportion of semi-digested fish, crusta- cean and mollusks found in the guts of three Hawkfish and two Squirrelfish species. While most prey remains lacked diagnostic morphological characters, 94% of the prey found in 67 fishes had (98% sequence similarity with BIOCODE reference sequences. Using this species-level prey identification, we demonstrate how DNA barcoding can provide insights into resource partitioning, predator feeding behaviors and the consequences of predation on ecosystem function.
63 citations
53 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that even without a genuine's private random vectors, a preimage of a BioCode is easily calculated from a lost BioCode and an attacker can gain an illegal access to a system.
Abstract: BioHashing generates a BioCode from a user's biometric features by projecting them onto user-specific random vectors and then discritizes the projection coefficients into zero or one. Since biometric features are distorted by the non-invertible transforms and template matching is performed in a transformed state, it has been claimed that BioHashing is oneway and a BioCode is as secure as a hashed password. However, we disprove it by showing that even without a genuine's private random vectors, a preimage of a BioCode is easily calculated from a lost BioCode and an attacker can gain an illegal access to a system.
46 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2015 | 3 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2012 | 2 |
| 2011 | 8 |
| 2010 | 1 |