ArticlePloS one2017
Evaluation of DNA barcodes in Codonopsis (Campanulaceae) and in some large angiosperm plant genera.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA barcoding: an efficient technology to authenticate plant species of traditional Chinese medicine and recent advances.Chinese medicine · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Four Commonly Used DNA Barcoding Loci forFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Characterization of Codonopsis pilosula subsp. tangshen plastome and comparative analysis of Codonopsis species.PloS one · 2022Article
- The Application and Limitation of Universal Chloroplast Markers in Discriminating East Asian Evergreen Oaks.Frontiers in plant science · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA barcoding is expected to be one of the most promising tools in biological taxonomy. However, there have been no agreements on which core barcode should be used in plants, especially in species-rich genera with wide geographical distributions. To evaluate their discriminatory power in large genera, four of the most widely used DNA barcodes, including three plastid regions (matK, rbcL, trnH-psbA) and nuclear internal transcribed spacer (nrITS), were tested in seven species-rich genera (Ficus, Pedicularis, Rhodiola, Rhododendron,Viburnum, Dendrobium and Lysimachia) and a moderate size genus, Codonopsis. All of the sequences from the aforementioned seven large genera were downloaded from NCBI. The related barcodes for Codonopsis were newly generated in this study. Genetics distances, DNA barcoding gaps and phylogenetic trees of the four single barcodes and their combinations were calculated and compared in the seven genera. As for single barcode, nrITS has the most variable sites, the clearest intra- and inter-specific divergences and the highest discrimination rates in the seven genera. Among the combinations of barcodes, ITS+matK performed better than all the single barcodes in most cases and even the three- and four-loci combinations in the seven genera. Therefore, we recommend ITS+matK as the core barcodes for large plant genera.
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.