Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24204702›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Two new computational methods for universal DNA barcoding: a benchmark using barcode sequences of bacteria, archaea, animals, fungi, and land plants.

Akifumi S Tanabe, Hirokazu Toju

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 108 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 300 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akifumi S TanabeGraduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan ; Research Center for Aquatic Genomics, National Research Institute of Fisheries Science, Fisheries Research Agency, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hirokazu Toju
Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency · JPKyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxonomic identification of biological specimens based on DNA sequence information (a.k.a. DNA barcoding) is becoming increasingly common in biodiversity science. Although several methods have been proposed, many of them are not universally applicable due to the need for prerequisite phylogenetic/machine-learning analyses, the need for huge computational resources, or the lack of a firm theoretical background. Here, we propose two new computational methods of DNA barcoding and show a benchmark for bacterial/archeal 16S, animal COX1, fungal internal transcribed spacer, and three plant chloroplast (rbcL, matK, and trnH-psbA) barcode loci that can be used to compare the performance of existing and new methods. The benchmark was performed under two alternative situations: query sequences were available in the corresponding reference sequence databases in one, but were not available in the other. In the former situation, the commonly used "1-nearest-neighbor" (1-NN) method, which assigns the taxonomic information of the most similar sequences in a reference database (i.e., BLAST-top-hit reference sequence) to a query, displays the highest rate and highest precision of successful taxonomic identification. However, in the latter situation, the 1-NN method produced extremely high rates of misidentification for all the barcode loci examined. In contrast, one of our new methods, the query-centric auto-k-nearest-neighbor (QCauto) method, consistently produced low rates of misidentification for all the loci examined in both situations. These results indicate that the 1-NN method is most suitable if the reference sequences of all potentially observable species are available in databases; otherwise, the QCauto method returns the most reliable identification results. The benchmark results also indicated that the taxon coverage of reference sequences is far from complete for genus or species level identification in all the barcode loci examined. Therefore, we need to accelerate the registration of reference barcode sequences to apply high-throughput DNA barcoding to genus or species level identification in biodiversity research.

Indexed as

AnimalsArchaeaBacteriaBenchmarkingComputational BiologyDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, Ribosomal SpacerElectron Transport Complex IVEmbryophytaFungiGenes, ChloroplastReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNADNA, Ribosomal SpacerElectron Transport Complex IVRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID24204702
PMCPMC3799923
OpenAlexW2138832938

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.