ArticleScientific reports2021
Comprehensive characterisation of Culicoides clastrieri and C. festivipennis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) according to morphological and morphometric characters using a multivariate approach and DNA barcode.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Insight intoPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The first record of Culicoides deltus as a putative vector of Onchocerca flexuosa in Slovak red deer (Cervus elaphus).Parasitology research · 2024Article
- Wing morphology variations inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Culicoides species community composition and feeding preferences in two aquatic ecosystems in northern Spain.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Unveiling the Pathogenic Bacteria Causing Descending Necrotizing Mediastinitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- An updated list of the Culicoides (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) fauna from Ecuador.Parasite (Paris, France) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biting midges are widespread around the world and play an essential role in the epidemiology of over 100 veterinary and medical diseases. For taxonomists, it is difficult to correctly identify species because of affinities among cryptic species and species complexes. In this study, species boundaries were examined for C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis and compared with six other Culicoides species. The classifiers are partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis (sPLS-DA).The performance of the proposed method was evaluated using four models: (i) geometric morphometrics applied to wings; (ii) morphological wing characters, (iii) "Full wing" (landmarks and morphological characters) and (iv) "Full model" (morphological characters-wing, head, abdomen, legs-and wing landmarks). Double cross-validation procedures were used to validate the predictive ability of PLS-DA and sPLS-DA models. The AUC (area under the ROC curve) and the balanced error rate showed that the sPLS-DA model performs better than the PLS-DA model. Our final sPLS-DA analysis on the full wing and full model, with nine and seven components respectively, managed to perfectly classify our specimens. The C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis sequences, containing both COI and 28S genes, revealed our markers' weak discrimination power, with an intraspecific and interspecific divergence of 0.4% and 0.1% respectively. Moreover, C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis are grouped in the same clade. The morphology and wing patterns of C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis can be used to clearly distinguish them. Our study confirms C. clastrieri and C. festivipennis as two distinct species. Our results show that caution should be applied when relying solely on DNA barcodes for species identification or discovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.