Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25107691›Full record

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.

Zhenzhen Yu, Qi Li, Lingfeng Kong, Hong Yu

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Zhenzhen YuThe Key Laboratory of Mariculture Ministry of Education, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266003, China.
Qi Li
Lingfeng Kong
Hong Yu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsBivalviaDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicElectron Transport Complex IVModels, GeneticRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificityElectron Transport Complex IVRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.