Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31575965›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Identification of Indian Spiders through DNA barcoding: Cryptic species and species complex.

Kaomud Tyagi, Vikas Kumar, Shantanu Kundu, Avas Pakrashi, Priya Prasad, John T D Caleb, Kailash Chandra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cryptic species conservation: a review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. PhytoKeys · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Kaomud TyagiCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1064-9826
Vikas KumarCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India. vikaszsi77@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0215-0120
Shantanu KunduCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5488-4433
Avas PakrashiCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.
Priya PrasadCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.
John T D CalebCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.
Kailash ChandraCentre for DNA Taxonomy, Molecular Systematics Division, Zoological Survey of India, M- Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700 053, West Bengal, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-5442

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spiders are mega diverse arthropods and play an important role in the ecosystem. Identification of this group is challenging due to their cryptic behavior, sexual dimorphism, and unavailability of taxonomic keys for juveniles. To overcome these obstacles, DNA barcoding plays a pivotal role in spider identification throughout the globe. This study is the first large scale attempt on DNA barcoding of spiders from India with 101 morphospecies of 72 genera under 21 families, including five endemic species and holotypes of three species. A total of 489 barcodes was generated and analyzed, among them 85 novel barcodes of 22 morphospecies were contributed to the global database. The estimated delimitation threshold of the Indian spiders was 2.6% to 3.7% K2P corrected pairwise distance. The multiple species delimitation methods (BIN, ABGD, GMYC and PTP) revealed a total of 107 molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs) for 101 morphospecies. We detected more than one MOTU in 11 morphospecies with discrepancies in genetic distances and tree topologies. Cryptic diversity was detected in Pardosa pusiola, Cyclosa spirifera, and Heteropoda venatoria. The intraspecies distances which were as large as our proposed delimitation threshold were observed in Pardosa sumatrana, Thiania bhamoensis, and Cheiracanthium triviale. Further, shallow genetic distances were detected in Cyrtophora cicatrosa, Hersilia savignyi, Argiope versicolor, Phintella vittata, and Oxyopes birmanicus. Two morphologically distinguished species (Plexippus paykulli and Plexippus petersi) showed intra-individual variation within their DNA barcode data. Additionally, we reinstate the original combination for Linyphia sikkimensis based on both morphology and DNA barcoding. These data show that DNA barcoding is a valuable tool for specimen identification and species discovery of Indian spiders.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicAnimalsClassificationDNAFemaleHaplotypesIndiaMalePhylogenyPolymerase Chain ReactionSpidersDNA

Identifiers

PMID31575965
PMCPMC6773733

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.