ArticlePloS one2018
Instances of erroneous DNA barcoding of metazoan invertebrates: Are universal cox1 gene primers too "universal"?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics.Genes · 2025Review
- Large-Scale Integrative Taxonomy of the Smallest Insects Reveals Astonishing Temperate Diversity (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae).Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- DNA metabarcoding analysis of stomach flushing contents reveals the exceptionally diverse diet of the golden alpine salamander.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Monitoring the genetic diversity in holothurian populations from the Italian coasts with mitochondrial DNA sequences.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Characterization of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome ofEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Diversity of Parasitoid Wasps and Comparison of Sampling Strategies in Rice Fields Using Metabarcoding.Insects · 2024Article
- Mitochondrial and ribosomal markers in the identification of nematodes of clinical and veterinary importance.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Molecular identification and phylogenetic confirmation ofOpen veterinary journal · 2023Article
- The complete mitochondrial genome ofParasitology · 2023Article
- Playing Peekaboo with a Master Manipulator: Metagenetic Detection and Phylogenetic Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- A rare case of human taeniasis caused byParasitology · 2023Article
- The first DNA barcode library of Chironomidae from the Tibetan Plateau with an evaluation of the status of the public databases.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Modification of the Folmer primers for the cytochrome c oxidase gene facilitates identification of mosquitoes.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Widespread Torix Rickettsia in New Zealand amphipods and the use of blocking primers to rescue host COI sequences.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Beyond DNA barcoding: The unrealized potential of genome skim data in sample identification.Molecular ecology · 2020Article
- BOLD and GenBank revisited - Do identification errors arise in the lab or in the sequence libraries?PloS one · 2020Article
- GenBank is a reliable resource for 21st century biodiversity research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Prospects and challenges of implementing DNA metabarcoding for high-throughput insect surveillance.GigaScience · 2019Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (cox1) gene is the main mitochondrial molecular marker playing a pivotal role in phylogenetic research and is a crucial barcode sequence. Folmer's "universal" primers designed to amplify this gene in metazoan invertebrates allowed quick and easy barcode and phylogenetic analysis. On the other hand, the increase in the number of studies on barcoding leads to more frequent publishing of incorrect sequences, due to amplification of non-target taxa, and insufficient analysis of the obtained sequences. Consequently, some sequences deposited in genetic databases are incorrectly described as obtained from invertebrates, while being in fact bacterial sequences. In our study, in which we used Folmer's primers to amplify COI sequences of the crustacean fairy shrimp Branchipus schaefferi (Fischer 1834), we also obtained COI sequences of microbial contaminants from Aeromonas sp. However, when we searched the GenBank database for sequences closely matching these contaminations we found entries described as representatives of Gastrotricha and Mollusca. When these entries were compared with other sequences bearing the same names in the database, the genetic distance between the incorrect and correct sequences amplified from the same species was c.a. 65%. Although the responsibility for the correct molecular identification of species rests on researchers, the errors found in already published sequences data have not been re-evaluated so far. On the basis of the standard sampling technique we have estimated with 95% probability that the chances of finding incorrectly described metazoan sequences in the GenBank depend on the systematic group, and variety from less than 1% (Mollusca and Arthropoda) up to 6.9% (Gastrotricha). Consequently, the increasing popularity of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding analysis may lead to overestimation of species diversity. Finally, the study also discusses the sources of the problems with amplification of non-target sequences.
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.