Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27547527›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

DNA barcode data accurately assign higher spider taxa.

Jonathan A Coddington, Ingi Agnarsson, Ren-Chung Cheng, Klemen Čandek, Amy Driskell, Holger Frick, Matjaž Gregorič, Rok Kostanjšek, Christian Kropf, Matthew Kweskin and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

14 authors.

Jonathan A CoddingtonNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution , Washington , D.C. , United States.
Ingi AgnarssonNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States; Department of Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States.
Ren-Chung ChengEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Klemen ČandekEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Amy DriskellNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution , Washington , D.C. , United States.
Holger FrickDepartment of Invertebrates, Natural History Museum Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
Matjaž GregoričEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Rok KostanjšekDepartment of Biology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Christian KropfDepartment of Invertebrates, Natural History Museum Bern , Bern , Switzerland.
Matthew KweskinNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution , Washington , D.C. , United States.
Tjaša LokovšekEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Miha PipanEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nina VidergarEZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts , Ljubljana , Slovenia.
Matjaž KuntnerNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States; EZ Lab, Institute of Biology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of unique DNA sequences as a method for taxonomic identification is no longer fundamentally controversial, even though debate continues on the best markers, methods, and technology to use. Although both existing databanks such as GenBank and BOLD, as well as reference taxonomies, are imperfect, in best case scenarios "barcodes" (whether single or multiple, organelle or nuclear, loci) clearly are an increasingly fast and inexpensive method of identification, especially as compared to manual identification of unknowns by increasingly rare expert taxonomists. Because most species on Earth are undescribed, a complete reference database at the species level is impractical in the near term. The question therefore arises whether unidentified species can, using DNA barcodes, be accurately assigned to more inclusive groups such as genera and families-taxonomic ranks of putatively monophyletic groups for which the global inventory is more complete and stable. We used a carefully chosen test library of CO1 sequences from 49 families, 313 genera, and 816 species of spiders to assess the accuracy of genus and family-level assignment. We used BLAST queries of each sequence against the entire library and got the top ten hits. The percent sequence identity was reported from these hits (PIdent, range 75-100%). Accurate assignment of higher taxa (PIdent above which errors totaled less than 5%) occurred for genera at PIdent values >95 and families at PIdent values ≥ 91, suggesting these as heuristic thresholds for accurate generic and familial identifications in spiders. Accuracy of identification increases with numbers of species/genus and genera/family in the library; above five genera per family and fifteen species per genus all higher taxon assignments were correct. We propose that using percent sequence identity between conventional barcode sequences may be a feasible and reasonably accurate method to identify animals to family/genus. However, the quality of the underlying database impacts accuracy of results; many outliers in our dataset could be attributed to taxonomic and/or sequencing errors in BOLD and GenBank. It seems that an accurate and complete reference library of families and genera of life could provide accurate higher level taxonomic identifications cheaply and accessibly, within years rather than decades.

Indexed as

DNA barcodingFamilyGenomeGenusGlobal Genome InitiativeTaxonomic impediment

Identifiers

PMID27547527
PMCPMC4958005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.