ArticlePloS one2010
Identifying Fishes through DNA Barcodes and Microarrays.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 224 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Microbial and Fish Communities in the Thracian Sea Revealed by eDNA Metabarcoding.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Hidden diversity revealed by DNA barcoding of paralichthyidae fish along the caribbean and brazilian coast.Genetica · 2024Article
- Fish diversity assessment through conventional morphological identification and recent advances in Saudi Arabia: A review.Veterinary world · 2024Review
- Continuous fish muscle cell line with capacity for myogenic and adipogenic-like phenotypes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Identification of New CTX Analogues in Fish from the Madeira and Selvagens Archipelagos by Neuro-2a CBA and LC-HRMS.Marine drugs · 2022Article
- Invasion of AfricanBiology · 2022Article
- Integrative approach for validation of six important fish species inhabiting River Poonch of north-west Himalayan region (India).Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022Article
- Molecular diversity of Uzbekistan's fishes assessed with DNA barcoding.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- DNA Analysis Detects Different Mislabeling Trend by Country in European Cod Fillets.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- DNA barcoding reveals fraud in commercial common snook (Heliyon · 2021Article
- A Current Update on the Distribution, Morphological Features, and Genetic Identity of the Southeast Asian Mahseers,Biology · 2021Review
- Characterization and phylogenetic analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome of sun loach (Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2021Article
- Triple barcoding for a hyperparasite, its parasitic host, and the host itself: a study of Cyclocotyla bellones (Monogenea) on Ceratothoa parallela (Isopoda) on Boops boops (Teleostei).Parasite (Paris, France) · 2021Article
- Molecular Identification of Mid to Final Stage Slipper Lobster Phyllosoma Larvae of the GenusZoological studies · 2021Article
- A thirteen-million-year divergence between two lineages of Indonesian coelacanths.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
- Hidden genetic diversity in snakeskin gourami,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational fish trade reached an import value of 62.8 billion Euro in 2006, of which 44.6% are covered by the European Union. Species identification is a key problem throughout the life cycle of fishes: from eggs and larvae to adults in fisheries research and control, as well as processed fish products in consumer protection. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThis study aims to evaluate the applicability of the three mitochondrial genes 16S rRNA (16S), cytochrome b (cyt b), and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) for the identification of 50 European marine fish species by combining techniques of "DNA barcoding" and microarrays. In a DNA barcoding approach, neighbour Joining (NJ) phylogenetic trees of 369 16S, 212 cyt b, and 447 COI sequences indicated that cyt b and COI are suitable for unambiguous identification, whereas 16S failed to discriminate closely related flatfish and gurnard species. In course of probe design for DNA microarray development, each of the markers yielded a high number of potentially species-specific probes in silico, although many of them were rejected based on microarray hybridisation experiments. None of the markers provided probes to discriminate the sibling flatfish and gurnard species. However, since 16S-probes were less negatively influenced by the "position of label" effect and showed the lowest rejection rate and the highest mean signal intensity, 16S is more suitable for DNA microarray probe design than cty b and COI. The large portion of rejected COI-probes after hybridisation experiments (>90%) renders the DNA barcoding marker as rather unsuitable for this high-throughput technology. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Based on these data, a DNA microarray containing 64 functional oligonucleotide probes for the identification of 30 out of the 50 fish species investigated was developed. It represents the next step towards an automated and easy-to-handle method to identify fish, ichthyoplankton, and fish products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.