ArticlePloS one2017
Testing efficacy of distance and tree-based methods for DNA barcoding of grasses (Poaceae tribe Poeae) in Australia.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing plant DNA barcoding: integrating chloroplast genome sequencing, cryptic diversity discovery and machine learning.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Genetic Diversity Unveiled: Cost-Effective Methods for Grassland Species.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Testing the effectiveness ofPeerJ · 2022Article
- Species diversity of freshwater shrimp in Henan Province, China, based on morphological characters andEcology and evolution · 2021Article
- Microfluidic Enrichment Barcoding (MEBarcoding): a new method for high throughput plant DNA barcoding.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The ITS region provides a reliable DNA barcode for identifying reishi/lingzhi (Ganoderma) from herbal supplements.PloS one · 2020Article
- Elucidating genetic variability and population structure in Venturia inaequalis associated with apple scab diseaseusing SSR markers.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Australia, Poaceae tribe Poeae are represented by 19 genera and 99 species, including economically and environmentally important native and introduced pasture grasses [e.g. Poa (Tussock-grasses) and Lolium (Ryegrasses)]. We used this tribe, which are well characterised in regards to morphological diversity and evolutionary relationships, to test the efficacy of DNA barcoding methods. A reference library was generated that included 93.9% of species in Australia (408 individuals, [Formula: see text] = 3.7 individuals per species). Molecular data were generated for official plant barcoding markers (rbcL, matK) and the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region. We investigated accuracy of specimen identifications using distance- (nearest neighbour, best-close match, and threshold identification) and tree-based (maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference) methods and applied species discovery methods (automatic barcode gap discovery, Poisson tree processes) based on molecular data to assess congruence with recognised species. Across all methods, success rate for specimen identification of genera was high (87.5-99.5%) and of species was low (25.6-44.6%). Distance- and tree-based methods were equally ineffective in providing accurate identifications for specimens to species rank (26.1-44.6% and 25.6-31.3%, respectively). The ITS marker achieved the highest success rate for specimen identification at both generic and species ranks across the majority of methods. For distance-based analyses the best-close match method provided the greatest accuracy for identification of individuals with a high percentage of "correct" (97.6%) and a low percentage of "incorrect" (0.3%) generic identifications, based on the ITS marker. For tribe Poeae, and likely for other grass lineages, sequence data in the standard DNA barcode markers are not variable enough for accurate identification of specimens to species rank. For recently diverged grass species similar challenges are encountered in the application of genetic and morphological data to species delimitations, with taxonomic signal limited by extensive infra-specific variation and shared polymorphisms among species in both data types.
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.