ArticlePloS one2015
Delineating species with DNA barcodes: a case of taxon dependent method performance in moths.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A taxonomic revision ofPersoonia · 2025Article
- Phylogeography of Microphis retzii (Bleeker, 1856) and Microphis brachyurus (Bleeker, 1854) in the Pacific.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Megabarcoding dark taxa - Assessing the utility of mass DNA barcoding for phorid fly species discovery.PloS one · 2025Article
- Species delimitation of tea plants (Camellia sect. Thea) based on super-barcodes.BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- Delimiting Species with Single-Locus DNA Sequences.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- A survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates in a river from the dry corridor of Nicaragua using biological indices and DNA barcoding.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Molecular phylogeny and phylogeography of the freshwater-fish genus Pethia (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in Sri Lanka.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Molecular species delimitation of shrub frogs of the genus Pseudophilautus (Anura, Rhacophoridae).PloS one · 2021Article
- Biodiversity inventory of the grey mullets (Actinopterygii: Mugilidae) of the Indo-Australian Archipelago through the iterative use of DNA-based species delimitation and specimen assignment methods.Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Assessing species diversity of Coral Triangle artisanal fisheries: A DNA barcode reference library for the shore fishes retailed at Ambon harbor (Indonesia).Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Disentangling the taxonomy of the subfamily Rasborinae (Cypriniformes, Danionidae) in Sundaland using DNA barcodes.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Ocrepeira klamt sp. n. (Araneae: Araneidae), a novel spider species from an Andean páramo in Colombia.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- DNA barcode library for European Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) suggests greatly underestimated species diversity.ZooKeys · 2020Article
- Is reproductive strategy a key factor in understanding the evolutionary history of Southern Ocean Asteroidea (Echinodermata)?Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Towards a global DNA barcode reference library for quarantine identifications of lepidopteran stemborers, with an emphasis on sugarcane pests.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- New Oligoneuriidae (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) from Iran.ZooKeys · 2019Article
- Species delimitation of neotropical Characins (Stevardiinae): Implications for taxonomy of complex groups.PloS one · 2019Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accelerating loss of biodiversity has created a need for more effective ways to discover species. Novel algorithmic approaches for analyzing sequence data combined with rapidly expanding DNA barcode libraries provide a potential solution. While several analytical methods are available for the delineation of operational taxonomic units (OTUs), few studies have compared their performance. This study compares the performance of one morphology-based and four DNA-based (BIN, parsimony networks, ABGD, GMYC) methods on two groups of gelechioid moths. It examines 92 species of Finnish Gelechiinae and 103 species of Australian Elachistinae which were delineated by traditional taxonomy. The results reveal a striking difference in performance between the two taxa with all four DNA-based methods. OTU counts in the Elachistinae showed a wider range and a relatively low (ca. 65%) OTU match with reference species while OTU counts were more congruent and performance was higher (ca. 90%) in the Gelechiinae. Performance rose when only monophyletic species were compared, but the taxon-dependence remained. None of the DNA-based methods produced a correct match with non-monophyletic species, but singletons were handled well. A simulated test of morphospecies-grouping performed very poorly in revealing taxon diversity in these small, dull-colored moths. Despite the strong performance of analyses based on DNA barcodes, species delineated using single-locus mtDNA data are best viewed as OTUs that require validation by subsequent integrative taxonomic work.
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.