ArticleFly
Non-destructive species identification of Drosophila obscura and D. subobscura (Diptera) using near-infrared spectroscopy.
Article in Fly. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Age, sex, and mating status discrimination in the sand fly Lutzomyia longipalpis using near infra-red spectroscopy (NIRS).Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Rapid and non-destructive identification of Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis mosquito species using Raman spectroscopy via machine learning classification models.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Near-infrared spectroscopy for metabolite quantification and species identification.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Phenomic Selection Is a Low-Cost and High-Throughput Method Based on Indirect Predictions: Proof of Concept on Wheat and Poplar.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- A near-infrared spectroscopy routine for unambiguous identification of cryptic ant species.PeerJ · 2015Article
- The Application of DNA Barcodes for the Identification of Marine Crustaceans from the North Sea and Adjacent Regions.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The vinegar flies Drosophila subobscura and D. obscura frequently serve as study organisms for evolutionary biology. Their high morphological similarity renders traditional species determination difficult, especially when living specimens for setting up laboratory populations need to be identified. Here we test the usefulness of cuticular chemical profiles collected via the non-invasive method near-infrared spectroscopy for discriminating live individuals of the two species. We find a classification success for wild-caught specimens of 85%. The species specificity of the chemical profiles persists in laboratory offspring (87-92% success). Thus, we conclude that the cuticular chemistry is genetically determined, despite changes in the cuticular fingerprints, which we interpret as due to laboratory adaptation, genetic drift and/or diet changes. However, because of these changes, laboratory-reared specimens should not be used to predict the species-membership of wild-caught individuals, and vice versa. Finally, we demonstrate that by applying an appropriate cut-off value for interpreting the prediction values, the classification success can be immensely improved (to up to 99%), albeit at the cost of excluding a considerable portion of specimens from identification.
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.