Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30250036›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

A two-step DNA barcoding approach for delimiting moth species: moths of Dongling Mountain (Beijing, China) as a case study.

Qian Jin, Xi-Min Hu, Hui-Lin Han, Fen Chen, Wei-Jia Cai, Qian-Qian Ruan, Bo Liu, Gui-Jie Luo, Hao Wang, Xu Liu and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The first record ofBiodiversity data journal · 2019
    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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Qian JinSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Xi-Min HuCollege of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China.
Hui-Lin HanSchool of Forestry, Experiment Center, Northeast Forestry University, Haerbin, 150040, China.
Fen ChenSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Wei-Jia CaiSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Qian-Qian RuanSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Bo LiuSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Gui-Jie LuoSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Hao WangSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Xu LiuSuqian Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Suqian, Jiangsu, 223800, China.
Robert D WardCSIRO National Research Collections Australia, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
Chun-Sheng WuInstitute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China.
John-James WilsonSchool of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, CF37 4AT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3583-3550
Ai-Bing ZhangCollege of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China. zhangab2008@mail.cnu.edu.cn.
Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNCapital Normal University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUNortheast Forestry University · CNUniversity of South Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA barcoding, based on a fragment of cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) mtDNA, is as an effective molecular tool for identification, discovery, and biodiversity assessment for most animals. However, multiple gene markers coupled with more sophisticated analytical approaches may be necessary to clarify species boundaries in cases of cryptic diversity or morphological plasticity. Using 339 moths collected from mountains surrounding Beijing, China, we tested a pipeline consisting of two steps: (1) rapid morphospecies sorting and screening of the investigated fauna with standard COI barcoding approaches; (2) additional analyses with multiple molecular markers for those specimens whose morphospecies and COI barcode grouping were incongruent. In step 1, 124 morphospecies were delimited into 116 barcode units, with 90% of the conflicts being associated with specimens identified to the genus Hypena. In step 2, 55 individuals representing all 12 Hypena morphospecies were analysed using COI, COII, 28S, EF-1a, Wgl sequences or their combinations with the BPP (Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography) multigene species delimitation method. The multigene analyses supported the delimitation of 5 species, consistent with the COI analysis. We conclude that a two-step barcoding analysis pipeline is able to rapidly characterize insect biodiversity and help to elucidate species boundaries for taxonomic complexes without jeopardizing overall project efficiency by substantially increasing analytical costs.

Indexed as

BiodiversityAnimalsBayes TheoremChinaDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, MitochondrialMothsPhylogeographySpecies SpecificityDNA, Mitochondrial

Identifiers

PMID30250036
PMCPMC6155206
OpenAlexW2890924581

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.