Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30977972›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2019

A DNA barcode library for 5,200 German flies and midges (Insecta: Diptera) and its implications for metabarcoding-based biomonitoring.

Jérôme Morinière, Michael Balke, Dieter Doczkal, Matthias F Geiger, Laura A Hardulak, Gerhard Haszprunar, Axel Hausmann, Lars Hendrich, Ledis Regalado, Björn Rulik and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Insects · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Principles for Constructing DNA Barcode Reference Libraries.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jérôme MorinièreSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-6409
Michael BalkeSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Dieter DoczkalSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Matthias F GeigerZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig - Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany.
Laura A HardulakSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Gerhard HaszprunarSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Axel HausmannSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Lars HendrichSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Ledis RegaladoSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.
Björn RulikZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig - Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany.
Stefan SchmidtSNSB-Zoologische Staatssammlung, München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5751-8706
Johann-Wolfgang WägeleZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig - Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany.
Paul D N HebertCentre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Bavarian State Collection of Zoology · DEZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig · DEUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

Bavarian State Ministry of Science and the ArtsGerman Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF FKZ 01LI1101German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF FKZ 01LI1501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study summarizes results of a DNA barcoding campaign on German Diptera, involving analysis of 45,040 specimens. The resultant DNA barcode library includes records for 2,453 named species comprising a total of 5,200 barcode index numbers (BINs), including 2,700 COI haplotype clusters without species-level assignment, so called "dark taxa." Overall, 88 out of 117 families (75%) recorded from Germany were covered, representing more than 50% of the 9,544 known species of German Diptera. Until now, most of these families, especially the most diverse, have been taxonomically inaccessible. By contrast, within a few years this study provided an intermediate taxonomic system for half of the German Dipteran fauna, which will provide a useful foundation for subsequent detailed, integrative taxonomic studies. Using DNA extracts derived from bulk collections made by Malaise traps, we further demonstrate that species delineation using BINs and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) constitutes an effective method for biodiversity studies using DNA metabarcoding. As the reference libraries continue to grow, and gaps in the species catalogue are filled, BIN lists assembled by metabarcoding will provide greater taxonomic resolution. The present study has three main goals: (a) to provide a DNA barcode library for 5,200 BINs of Diptera; (b) to demonstrate, based on the example of bulk extractions from a Malaise trap experiment, that DNA barcode clusters, labelled with globally unique identifiers (such as OTUs and/or BINs), provide a pragmatic, accurate solution to the "taxonomic impediment"; and (c) to demonstrate that interim names based on BINs and OTUs obtained through metabarcoding provide an effective method for studies on species-rich groups that are usually neglected in biodiversity research projects because of their unresolved taxonomy.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicAnimalsCeratopogonidaeChironomidaeDipteraEcological Parameter MonitoringGermanybarcode librarybiodiversity monitoringCO1cryptic diversityDipteraDNA barcodingGermanymetabarcodingmitochondrial DNA

Identifiers

PMID30977972
PMCPMC6851627
OpenAlexW2939722765

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.