ArticleMolecular biology reports2020
DNA barcodes for the identification of Stephania (Menispermaceae) species.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Exploration and Preliminary Investigation of WiledCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Phylogenetic analysis based on the ITS, matK and rbcL DNA barcodes and comparison of chemical contents of twelve Paeonia taxa in Türkiye.Molecular biology reports · 2023Article
- The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the medicinal plantMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stephania is a medicinal plants-rich genus of Menispermaceae. However, the identification of morphologically-similar species in Stephania is difficult using the currently reported methods. The indiscriminate overexploitation of Stephania plants has resulted in clinical misuse and endangerment of many species, which necessitates the development of an efficient and reliable method for species authentication. Therefore, six candidate DNA barcode sequences (ITS, ITS2, psbA-trnH, matK, rbcL, and trnL-F) were tested for their capacity to identify Stephania species. The barcodes were analyzed either as a single region or in combination by tree-based [neighbor-joining (NJ) and Bayesian inference (BI)], distance-based (PWG-distance), and sequence similarity-based (TaxonDNA) methods. Amplification and sequencing success rates were 100% for all six candidate barcodes. A comparison of six barcode regions showed that ITS exhibited the highest number of variable and informative sites (182/179), followed by psbA-trnH (173/162). DNA barcoding gap assessment showed that interspecific distances of the six barcodes were greater than intraspecific distances. The identification results showed that species discrimination rates of combination barcodes were higher than those of single-region barcodes. Based on best match and best close match methods, the ITS+psbA-trnH combination exhibited the highest discrimination power (93.93%). Further, all Stephania species could be resolved in the phylogenetic trees based on ITS+psbA-trnH (NJ, BI). This study demonstrates that DNA barcoding is an efficient method to identify Stephania species and recommends that the ITS+psbA-trnH combination is the best DNA barcode for the identification of Stephania species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32078092What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.