Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22916158›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Evaluating the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) as a candidate dinoflagellate barcode marker.

Rowena F Stern, Robert A Andersen, Ian Jameson, Frithjof C Küpper, Mary-Alice Coffroth, Daniel Vaulot, Florence Le Gall, Benoît Véron, Jerry J Brand, Hayley Skelton and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ecology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Development of a rapid detection method forFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cryptic infection of a broad taxonomic and geographic diversity of tadpoles by Perkinsea protists.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

Rowena F SternThe Laboratory, Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, Plymouth, United Kingdom. rost@sahfos.ac.uk
Robert A Andersen
Ian Jameson
Frithjof C Küpper
Mary-Alice Coffroth
Daniel Vaulot
Florence Le Gall
Benoît Véron
Jerry J Brand
Hayley Skelton
Fumai Kasai
Emily L Lilly
Patrick J Keeling

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA barcoding offers an efficient way to determine species identification and to measure biodiversity. For dinoflagellates, an ancient alveolate group of about 2000 described extant species, DNA barcoding studies have revealed large amounts of unrecognized species diversity, most of which is not represented in culture collections. To date, two mitochondrial gene markers, Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) and Cytochrome b oxidase (COB), have been used to assess DNA barcoding in dinoflagellates, and both failed to amplify all taxa and suffered from low resolution. Nevertheless, both genes yielded many examples of morphospecies showing cryptic speciation and morphologically distinct named species being genetically similar, highlighting the need for a common marker. For example, a large number of cultured Symbiodinium strains have neither taxonomic identification, nor a common measure of diversity that can be used to compare this genus to other dinoflagellates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the Internal Transcribed Spacer units 1 and 2 (ITS) of the rDNA operon, as a high resolution marker for distinguishing species dinoflagellates in culture. In our study, from 78 different species, the ITS barcode clearly differentiated species from genera and could identify 96% of strains to a known species or sub-genus grouping. 8.3% showed evidence of being cryptic species. A quarter of strains identified had no previous species identification. The greatest levels of hidden biodiversity came from Scrippsiella and the Pfiesteriaceae family, whilst Heterocapsa strains showed a high level of mismatch to their given species name. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The ITS marker was successful in confirming species, revealing hidden diversity in culture collections. This marker, however, may have limited use for environmental barcoding due to paralogues, the potential for unidentifiable chimaeras and priming across taxa. In these cases ITS would serve well in combination with other markers or for specific taxon studies.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicGenetic MarkersAnimalsDinoflagellidaElectron Transport Complex IVPhylogenyRibosomesElectron Transport Complex IVGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID22916158
PMCPMC3420951

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.