Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31527883›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Using DNA barcoding to improve invasive pest identification at U.S. ports-of-entry.

Mary J L Madden, Robert G Young, John W Brown, Scott E Miller, Andrew J Frewin, Robert H Hanner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Real-Time PCR Assay for Detecting Codling MothInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary J L MaddenDepartment of Integrated Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3898-125X
Robert G YoungDepartment of Integrated Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6731-2506
John W BrownEntomology Department, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Scott E MillerEntomology Department, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Andrew J FrewinDepartment of Integrated Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Robert H HannerDepartment of Integrated Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
University of Guelph · CASmithsonian Institution · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interception of potential invasive species at ports-of-entry is essential for effective biosecurity and biosurveillance programs. However, taxonomic assessment of the immature stages of most arthropods is challenging; characters for identification are often dependent on adult morphology and reproductive structures. This study aims to strengthen the identification of such specimens through DNA barcoding, with a focus on microlepidoptera. A sample of 241 primarily immature microlepidoptera specimens intercepted at U.S. ports-of-entry from 2007 to 2011 were selected for analysis. From this sample, 201 COI-5P sequences were generated and analyzed for concordance between morphology-based and DNA-based identifications. The retrospective analysis of the data over 10 years (2009 to 2019) using the Barcode of Life Data (BOLD) system demonstrates the importance of establishing and growing DNA barcode reference libraries for use in specimen identification. Additionally, analysis of specimen identification using public data (43.3% specimens identified) vs. non-public data (78.6% specimens identified) highlights the need to encourage researchers to make data publicly accessible. DNA barcoding surpassed morphological identification with 42.3% (public) and 66.7% (non-public) of the sampled specimens achieving a species-level identification, compared to 38.3% species-level identification by morphology. Whilst DNA barcoding was not able to identify all specimens in our dataset, its incorporation into border security programs as an adjunct to morphological identification can provide secondary lines of evidence and lower taxonomic resolution in many cases. Furthermore, with increased globalization, database records need to be clearly annotated for suspected specimen origin versus interception location.

Indexed as

AnimalsArthropodsDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicHumansMicrocephalyPest ControlRetrospective StudiesDNA

Identifiers

PMID31527883
PMCPMC6748562
OpenAlexW2973445699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.