Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29933389›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Instances of erroneous DNA barcoding of metazoan invertebrates: Are universal cox1 gene primers too "universal"?

Monika Mioduchowska, Michał Jan Czyż, Bartłomiej Gołdyn, Jarosław Kur, Jerzy Sell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. GenBank is a reliable resource for 21st century biodiversity research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Monika MioduchowskaDepartment of Genetics and Biosystematics, Faculty of Biology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1707-5028
Michał Jan CzyżResearch Centre of Quarantine, Invasive and Genetically Modified Organisms, Institute of Plant Protection - National Research Institute, Poznań, Poland.
Bartłomiej GołdynDepartment of General Zoology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.
Jarosław KurInstitute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Science, Kraków, Poland.
Jerzy SellDepartment of Genetics and Biosystematics, Faculty of Biology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.
University of Gdańsk · PLAdam Mickiewicz University in Poznań · PLInstitute of Nature Conservation · PLInstitute of Plant Protection · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, MitochondrialDNA PrimersAnimalsDatabases, Nucleic AcidElectron Transport Complex IVInvertebratesPhylogenyPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA, MitochondrialDNA PrimersElectron Transport Complex IV

Identifiers

PMID29933389
PMCPMC6014667
OpenAlexW2809459002

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.