Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27288478›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2016

Species-Level Para- and Polyphyly in DNA Barcode Gene Trees: Strong Operational Bias in European Lepidoptera.

Marko Mutanen, Sami M Kivelä, Rutger A Vos, Camiel Doorenweerd, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Axel Hausmann, Peter Huemer, Vlad Dincă, Erik J van Nieukerken, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
22.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Revision of the GenusInsects · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

23 authors at 14 institutions in 11 countries.

Marko MutanenDepartment of Genetics and Physiology, University of Oulu, Finland; marko.mutanen@oulu.fi.
Sami M KiveläDepartment of Ecology, University of Oulu, Finland.
Rutger A VosNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Camiel DoorenweerdNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sujeevan RatnasinghamCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Canada.
Axel HausmannSNSB - Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Munich, Germany.
Peter HuemerTiroler Landesmuseen-Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H., Innsbruck, Austria.
Vlad DincăCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Canada.
Erik J van NieukerkenInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Barcelona, Spain.
Carlos Lopez-VaamondeINRA, UR633 Zoologie Forestière, 45075 Orléans, France.
Roger VilaInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Barcelona, Spain.
Leif AarvikNatural History Museum University of Oslo, Norway.
Thibaud DecaënsCentre d'Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive, UMR 5175 CNRS / University of Montpellier / University of Montpellier 3 / EPHE / SupAgro Montpellier / INRA / IRD, 1919 Route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Konstantin A EfetovCrimean Federal University, Simferopol, Crimea.
Paul D N HebertCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Canada.
Arild JohnsenNatural History Museum University of Oslo, Norway.
Ole KarsholtZoologisk Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Mikko PentinsaariDepartment of Genetics and Physiology, University of Oulu, Finland.
Rodolphe RougerieDépartement Systématique et Evolution, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité, ISYEB-UMR 7205 MNHN, CNRS, UPMC, EPHE, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France.
Andreas SegererSNSB - Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Munich, Germany.
Gerhard TarmannTiroler Landesmuseen-Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H., Innsbruck, Austria.
Reza ZahiriCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Canada.
H Charles J GodfrayDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK.
University of Guelph · CAUniversity of Oulu · FIBavarian State Collection of Zoology · DEInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva · ESNaturalis Biodiversity Center · NLTirol Kliniken · ATUniversity of Oslo · NOCanadian Food Inspection Agency · CACentre d'Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRÉcole Pratique des Hautes Études · FRNatural History Museum Aarhus · DKUniversity of Oxford · GBV.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University · UA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proliferation of DNA data is revolutionizing all fields of systematic research. DNA barcode sequences, now available for millions of specimens and several hundred thousand species, are increasingly used in algorithmic species delimitations. This is complicated by occasional incongruences between species and gene genealogies, as indicated by situations where conspecific individuals do not form a monophyletic cluster in a gene tree. In two previous reviews, non-monophyly has been reported as being common in mitochondrial DNA gene trees. We developed a novel web service "Monophylizer" to detect non-monophyly in phylogenetic trees and used it to ascertain the incidence of species non-monophyly in COI (a.k.a. cox1) barcode sequence data from 4977 species and 41,583 specimens of European Lepidoptera, the largest data set of DNA barcodes analyzed from this regard. Particular attention was paid to accurate species identification to ensure data integrity. We investigated the effects of tree-building method, sampling effort, and other methodological issues, all of which can influence estimates of non-monophyly. We found a 12% incidence of non-monophyly, a value significantly lower than that observed in previous studies. Neighbor joining (NJ) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods yielded almost equal numbers of non-monophyletic species, but 24.1% of these cases of non-monophyly were only found by one of these methods. Non-monophyletic species tend to show either low genetic distances to their nearest neighbors or exceptionally high levels of intraspecific variability. Cases of polyphyly in COI trees arising as a result of deep intraspecific divergence are negligible, as the detected cases reflected misidentifications or methodological errors. Taking into consideration variation in sampling effort, we estimate that the true incidence of non-monophyly is ∼23%, but with operational factors still being included. Within the operational factors, we separately assessed the frequency of taxonomic limitations (presence of overlooked cryptic and oversplit species) and identification uncertainties. We observed that operational factors are potentially present in more than half (58.6%) of the detected cases of non-monophyly. Furthermore, we observed that in about 20% of non-monophyletic species and entangled species, the lineages involved are either allopatric or parapatric-conditions where species delimitation is inherently subjective and particularly dependent on the species concept that has been adopted. These observations suggest that species-level non-monophyly in COI gene trees is less common than previously supposed, with many cases reflecting misidentifications, the subjectivity of species delimitation or other operational factors.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAnimalsBiasClassificationDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, MitochondrialGenes, MitochondrialLepidopteraDNA, MitochondrialDNA barcodinggene treeLepidopteramitochondrial COImitochondrial cox1paraphylypolyphylyspecies delimitationspecies monophyly

Identifiers

PMID27288478
PMCPMC5066064
OpenAlexW2418218291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.