Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28414813›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

DNA barcoding evaluation and implications for phylogenetic relationships in Lauraceae from China.

Zhi-Fang Liu, Xiu-Qin Ci, Lang Li, Hsi-Wen Li, John G Conran, Jie Li

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. High species discrimination inPlant diversity · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Plastome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  9. Two new species ofPhytoKeys · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Essential Oil Chemotypes and Genetic Variability ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. The complete chloroplast genome sequence ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Zhi-Fang LiuPlant Phylogenetics and Conservation Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.
Xiu-Qin CiPlant Phylogenetics and Conservation Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.
Lang LiPlant Phylogenetics and Conservation Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.
Hsi-Wen LiHerbarium (KUN), Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.
John G ConranAustralian Centre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity & Sprigg Geobiology Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jie LiPlant Phylogenetics and Conservation Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lauraceae are an important component of tropical and subtropical forests and have major ecological and economic significance. Owing to lack of clear-cut morphological differences between genera and species, this family is an ideal case for testing the efficacy of DNA barcoding in the identification and discrimination of species and genera. In this study, we evaluated five widely recommended plant DNA barcode loci matK, rbcL, trnH-psbA, ITS2 and the entire ITS region for 409 individuals representing 133 species, 12 genera from China. We tested the ability of DNA barcoding to distinguish species and as an alternative tool for correcting species misidentification. We also used the rbcL+matK+trnH-psbA+ITS loci to investigate the phylogenetic relationships of the species examined. Among the gene regions and their combinations, ITS was the most efficient for identifying species (57.5%) and genera (70%). DNA barcoding also had a positive role for correcting species misidentification (10.8%). Furthermore, based on the results of the phylogenetic analyses, Chinese Lauraceae species formed three supported monophyletic clades, with the Cryptocarya group strongly supported (PP = 1.00, BS = 100%) and the clade including the Persea group, Laureae and Cinnamomum also receiving strong support (PP = 1.00, BS = 98%), whereas the Caryodaphnopsis-Neocinnamomum received only moderate support (PP = 1.00 and BS = 85%). This study indicates that molecular barcoding can assist in screening difficult to identify families like Lauraceae, detecting errors of species identification, as well as helping to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. DNA barcoding can thus help with large-scale biodiversity inventories and rare species conservation by improving accuracy, as well as reducing time and costs associated with species identification.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicChinaDNA, PlantLauraceaePhylogenySpecies SpecificityDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID28414813
PMCPMC5393608

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.