Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24896814›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

DNA barcoding and the associated PhylAphidB@se website for the identification of European aphids (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae).

Armelle Coeur d'Acier, Astrid Cruaud, Emmanuelle Artige, Gwenaëlle Genson, Anne-Laure Clamens, Eric Pierre, Sylvie Hudaverdian, Jean-Christophe Simon, Emmanuelle Jousselin, Jean-Yves Rasplus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Phylogeny, taxonomy and intraspecific variation of the rocky-intertidal trematodeInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  4. Tracing the Invasion ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Reexamination ofBiodiversity data journal · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors.

Armelle Coeur d'AcierINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Astrid CruaudINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Emmanuelle ArtigeINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Gwenaëlle GensonINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Anne-Laure ClamensINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Eric PierreINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Sylvie HudaverdianINRA, UMR IGEPP (Institute of Genetics, Environnement and Plant Protection), Le Rheu, France.
Jean-Christophe SimonINRA, UMR IGEPP (Institute of Genetics, Environnement and Plant Protection), Le Rheu, France.
Emmanuelle JousselinINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Jean-Yves RasplusINRA, UMR 1062 CBGP (Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledAphids constitute a diverse group of plant-feeding insects and are among the most important crop pests in temperate regions. Their morphological identification is time-consuming and requires specific knowledge, training and skills that may take years to acquire. We assessed the advantages and limits of DNA barcoding with the standard COI barcode fragment for the identification of European aphids. We constructed a large reference dataset of barcodes from 1020 specimens belonging to 274 species and 87 genera sampled throughout Europe and set up a database-driven website allowing species identification from query sequences.

resultsIn this unbiased sampling of the taxonomic diversity of European aphids, intraspecific divergence ranged from 0.0% to 3.9%, with a mean value of 0.29%, whereas mean congeneric divergence was 6.4%, ranging from 0.0% to 15%. Neighbor-joining analysis generated a tree in which most species clustered in distinct genetic units. Most of the species with undifferentiated or overlapping barcodes belonged to the genus Aphis or, to a lesser extent, the genera Brachycaudus, Dysaphis and Macrosiphum. The taxa involved were always morphologically similar or closely related and belonged to species groups known to present taxonomic difficulties.

conclusionsThese data confirm that COI barcoding is a useful identification tool for aphids. Barcode identification is straightforward and reliable for 80% of species, including some difficult to distinguish on the basis of morphological characters alone. Unsurprisingly, barcodes often failed to distinguish between species from groups for which classical taxonomy has also reached its limits, leading to endless revisions and discussions about species and subspecies definitions. In such cases, the development of an effective procedure for the accurate identification of aphid specimens continues to pose a difficult challenge.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicAnimalsAphidsDatabases, GeneticEuropePhylogenySequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID24896814
PMCPMC4045754

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.