ArticleF1000Research2016
DNA barcoding of
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overcoming taxonomic challenges in DNA barcoding for improvement of identification and preservation of clariid catfish species.Genomics & informatics · 2023Article
- Article
- Invasion of AfricanBiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Biometric and genetic differences in kelabau (F1000Research · 2019Article
- DNA barcoding of economically important freshwater fish species from north-central Nigeria uncovers cryptic diversity.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA barcoding has been adopted as a gold standard rapid, precise and unifying identification system for animal species and provides a database of genetic sequences that can be used as a tool for universal species identification. In this study, we employed mitochondrial genes 16S rRNA (16S) and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) for the identification of some Nigerian freshwater catfish and Tilapia species. Approximately 655 bp were amplified from the 5' region of the mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene whereas 570 bp were amplified for the 16S rRNA gene. Nucleotide divergences among sequences were estimated based on Kimura 2-parameter distances and the genetic relationships were assessed by constructing phylogenetic trees using the neighbour-joining (NJ) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods. Analyses of consensus barcode sequences for each species, and alignment of individual sequences from within a given species revealed highly consistent barcodes (99% similarity on average), which could be compared with deposited sequences in public databases. The nucleotide distance between species belonging to different genera based on COI ranged from 0.17% between
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.