Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35556139›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2022

Towards Large-Scale Integrative Taxonomy (LIT): Resolving the Data Conundrum for Dark Taxa.

Emily Hartop, Amrita Srivathsan, Fredrik Ronquist, Rudolf Meier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prospects for Complete DNA Barcode Coverage of the New Zealand Insect Fauna.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

4 authors.

Emily HartopDepartment of Zoology, Stockholm University, Frescativägen, 114 19 Stockholm, Sweden.
Amrita SrivathsanCenter for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Museum für Naturkunde, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Rudolf MeierCenter for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Museum für Naturkunde, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New, rapid, accurate, scalable, and cost-effective species discovery and delimitation methods are needed for tackling "dark taxa," here defined as groups for which $<$10$\%$ of all species are described and the estimated diversity exceeds 1,000 species. Species delimitation for these taxa should be based on multiple data sources ("integrative taxonomy") but collecting multiple types of data risks impeding a discovery process that is already too slow. We here develop large-scale integrative taxonomy (LIT), an explicit method where preliminary species hypotheses are generated based on inexpensive data that can be obtained quickly and cost-effectively. These hypotheses are then evaluated based on a more expensive type of "validation data" that is only obtained for specimens selected based on objective criteria applied to the preliminary species hypotheses. We here use this approach to sort 18,000 scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) into 315 preliminary species hypotheses based on next-generation sequencing barcode (313 bp) clusters (using objective clustering [OC] with a 3$\%$ threshold). These clusters are then evaluated with morphology as the validation data. We develop quantitative indicators for predicting which barcode clusters are likely to be incongruent with morphospecies by randomly selecting 100 clusters for in-depth validation with morphology. A linear model demonstrates that the best predictors for incongruence between barcode clusters and morphology are maximum p-distance within the cluster and a newly proposed index that measures cluster stability across different clustering thresholds. A test of these indicators using the 215 remaining clusters reveals that these predictors correctly identify all clusters that are incongruent with morphology. In our study, all morphospecies are true or disjoint subsets of the initial barcode clusters so that all incongruence can be eliminated by varying clustering thresholds. This leads to a discussion of when a third data source is needed to resolve incongruent grouping statements. The morphological validation step in our study involved 1,039 specimens (5.8$\%$ of the total). The formal LIT protocol we propose would only have required the study of 915 (5.1$\%$: 2.5 specimens per species), as we show that clusters without signatures of incongruence can be validated by only studying two specimens representing the most divergent haplotypes. To test the generality of our results across different barcode clustering techniques, we establish that the levels of incongruence are similar across OC, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), Poisson Tree Processes (PTP), and Refined Single Linkage (RESL) (used by Barcode of Life Data System to assign Barcode Index Numbers [BINs]). OC and ABGD achieved a maximum congruence score with the morphology of 89$\%$ while PTP was slightly less effective (84$\%$). RESL could only be tested for a subset of the specimens because the algorithm is not public. BINs based on 277 of the original 1,714 haplotypes were 86$\%$ congruent with morphology while the values were 89$\%$ for OC, 74$\%$ for PTP, and 72$\%$ for ABGD. [Biodiversity discovery; dark taxa; DNA barcodes; integrative taxonomy.].

Indexed as

BiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicCluster AnalysisHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID35556139
PMCPMC9558837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.