ArticleMolecular ecology resources2015
Towards a universal barcode of oomycetes--a comparison of the cox1 and cox2 loci.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitochondrial genomic variation, evolutionary dynamics, and phylogeny of forest-associatedIMA fungus · 2026Article
- A revision ofIMA fungus · 2026Article
- Rediscovery ofMycobiology · 2026Article
- Revisiting Species Boundaries inMycobiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing image retrieval through optimal barcode representation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evolutionary Relationships of theEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Identification, Phylogeny, and Fungicide Sensitivity of Oomycota Species Causing Stem and Root Rots on Chrysanthemums in Korea.Mycobiology · 2025Article
- In vitro Study of Fungus-Like OrganismsJournal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Globisporangium tabrizense sp. nov., Globisporangium mahabadense sp. nov., and Pythium bostanabadense sp. nov. (Oomycota), three new species from Iranian aquatic environments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Single host plant species may harbour more than one species ofPersoonia · 2024Article
- What are the 100 most cited fungal genera?Studies in mycology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Adding a missing piece to the puzzle of oomycete phylogeny: the placement ofFungal systematics and evolution · 2023Article
- Molecular Approaches for Detection ofBiology · 2023Review
- Morphology, Molecular Phylogeny, and Fungicide Sensitivity ofMycobiology · 2023Article
- Pythium insidiosum Keratitis: Past, Present, and Future.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022Review
- Comparison of Primers for the Detection ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
12 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Oomycetes are a diverse group of eukaryotes in terrestrial, limnic and marine habitats worldwide and include several devastating plant pathogens, for example Phytophthora infestans (potato late blight). The cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 gene (cox2) has been widely used for identification, taxonomy and phylogeny of various oomycete groups. However, recently the cox1 gene was proposed as a DNA barcode marker instead, together with ITS rDNA. The cox1 locus has been used in some studies of Pythium and Phytophthora, but has rarely been used for other oomycetes, as amplification success of cox1 varies with different lineages and sample ages. To determine which out of cox1 or cox2 is best suited as a universal oomycete barcode, we compared these two genes in terms of (i) PCR efficiency for 31 representative genera, as well as for historic herbarium specimens, and (ii) sequence polymorphism, intra- and interspecific divergence. The primer sets for cox2 successfully amplified all oomycete genera tested, while cox1 failed to amplify three genera. In addition, cox2 exhibited higher PCR efficiency for historic herbarium specimens, providing easier access to barcoding-type material. Sequence data for several historic type specimens exist for cox2, but there are none for cox1. In addition, cox2 yielded higher species identification success, with higher interspecific and lower intraspecific divergences than cox1. Therefore, cox2 is suggested as a partner DNA barcode along with ITS rDNA instead of cox1. The cox2-1 spacer could be a useful marker below species level. Improved protocols and universal primers are presented for all genes to facilitate future barcoding efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.