ArticleMarine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.)2015
Utility of DNA barcoding for Tellinoidea: a comparison of distance, coalescent and character-based methods on multiple genes.
Article in Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How DNA barcoding can be more effective in microalgae identification: a case of cryptic diversity revelation in Scenedesmus (Chlorophyceae).Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Pay Attention to the Overlooked Cryptic Diversity in Existing Barcoding Data: the Case of Mollusca with Character-Based DNA Barcoding.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA barcoding has become a promising tool for rapid species identification using a short fragment of mitochondrial gene. Currently, an increasing number of analytical methods are available to assign DNA barcodes to taxa. The methods can be broadly divided into three main categories: (i) distance-based methods (the classical approach and the automatic barcode gap discovery (ABGD) approach), (ii) coalescent-based methods (the monophyly-based method and the general mixed Yule coalescent (GMYC) model) and (iii) the character-based method (CAOS). This study is set out to evaluate the availability of each method in barcoding Tellinoidea on the cytomchrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) and the 16 small-subunit ribosomal DNA (16S rDNA) genes. As a result, the character-based method was found to be the best in all cases, especially on a genus level. For distance-based methods, the elaborate one gained a success equal or greater than the basic one. The traditional coalescent-based method nicely delimited all of the tellinoideans on a species level. The GMYC model, which is the most radical, clearly inflated the number of species units by 34.6 % for COI gene and by 58.8 % for 16S gene. Thus, we conclude that CAOS better approximates a real barcode, and suggest the use of the ABGD method and the monophyly-based method for primary partitions. Additionally, COI gene may be more suitable as a standard barcode marker than 16S gene, particularly for tree-based methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25107691What 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.