Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20838643›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Identifying Fishes through DNA Barcodes and Microarrays.

Marc Kochzius, Christian Seidel, Aglaia Antoniou, Sandeep Kumar Botla, Daniel Campo, Alessia Cariani, Eva Garcia Vazquez, Janet Hauschild, Caroline Hervet, Sigridur Hjörleifsdottir and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 224 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Invasion of AfricanBiology · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Hidden genetic diversity in snakeskin gourami,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Marc KochziusCentre for Applied Gene Sensor Technology, FB2-UFT, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. marc.kochzius@vub.ac.be
Christian Seidel
Aglaia Antoniou
Sandeep Kumar Botla
Daniel Campo
Alessia Cariani
Eva Garcia Vazquez
Janet Hauschild
Caroline Hervet
Sigridur Hjörleifsdottir
Gudmundur Hreggvidsson
Kristina Kappel
Monica Landi
Antonios Magoulas
Viggo Marteinsson
Manfred Nölte
Serge Planes
Fausto Tinti
Cemal Turan
Moleyur N Venugopal
Hannes Weber
Dietmar Blohm
University of Bremen · DEMatís (Iceland) · ISUniversity of Bologna · ITÉcole Pratique des Hautes Études · FRHellenic Centre for Marine Research · GRUniversidad de Oviedo · ESMustafa Kemal University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsCytochromes bDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, RibosomalElectron Transport Complex IVFishesFish ProteinsMolecular Sequence DataOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPhylogenyCytochromes bDNADNA, RibosomalElectron Transport Complex IVFish Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20838643
PMCPMC2935389
OpenAlexW2100165802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.