ArticleSystematic biology2016
Species-Level Para- and Polyphyly in DNA Barcode Gene Trees: Strong Operational Bias in European Lepidoptera.
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.
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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 193 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Traps to Taxa: Building a Robust DNA Barcode Reference Library for the Early Detection of Invasive Cerambycidae.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- DNA Barcode Reference Library for European Ants: A Roadmap for Phylogeography and Species Discovery.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- DNA-based identification of plants and the genomic nature of plant species differences.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Article
- On the integrative taxonomy of Trichophoromyia Barretto, 1962 and its relationship with Nyssomyia Barretto, 1962 (Diptera, Psychodidae, Phlebotominae): species delimitation, phylogeny, genus and subgenus description.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- DNA barcode reference library of bush-crickets (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) from the Iberian Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Megabarcoding dark taxa - Assessing the utility of mass DNA barcoding for phorid fly species discovery.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- MANGF: a reference library of DNA barcodes for Mantodea from French Guiana (Insecta, Dictyoptera).Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Disentangling Taxonomic Confusions in theInsects · 2024Article
- Revision of the GenusInsects · 2024Article
- Species delimitation of tea plants (Camellia sect. Thea) based on super-barcodes.BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Taxonomic Structure and Wing Pattern Evolution in theInsects · 2023Article
- Review of the Narrow-Banded Hawkmoth,Insects · 2023Article
- From bites to barcodes: uncovering the hidden diversity of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in Vietnam.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 14 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.