Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36137118›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Mitochondrial DNA barcoding of mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand.

Tanawat Chaiphongpachara, Tanasak Changbunjong, Sedthapong Laojun, Teerayoot Nutepsu, Nantana Suwandittakul, Kewarin Kuntawong, Suchada Sumruayphol, Jiraporn Ruangsittichai

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Geometric morphometric analysis of wing size and shape variation inJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026
    Article
  8. An Integrative Assessment ofJournal of tropical medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Insects · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Accurate identification of medically importantCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025
    Article
  14. Species classification ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tanawat ChaiphongpacharaDepartment of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9585-4241
Tanasak ChangbunjongFaculty of Veterinary Science, Department of Pre-Clinic and Applied Animal Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Sedthapong LaojunDepartment of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Teerayoot NutepsuDepartment of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nantana SuwandittakulDepartment of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kewarin KuntawongDepartment of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suchada SumruaypholFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Department of Medical Entomology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jiraporn RuangsittichaiFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Department of Medical Entomology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The correct identification of mosquito species is important for effective mosquito vector control. However, the standard morphological identification of mosquito species based on the available keys is not easy with specimens in the field due to missing or damaged morphological features during mosquito collections, often leading to the misidentification of morphologically indistinguishable. To resolve this problem, we collected mosquito species across Thailand to gather genetic information, and evaluated the DNA barcoding efficacy for mosquito species identification in Thailand. A total of 310 mosquito samples, representing 73 mosquito species, were amplified using mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) primers. The average maximum intraspecific genetic variation of the 73 mosquito species was 1% ranged from 0-5.7%. While, average minimum interspecific genetic variation (the distance to the nearest neighbour) of the 73 mosquito species was 7% ranged from 0.3-12.9%. The identification of success rates based on the "Best Match," "Best Close Match," and "All Species Barcodes" methods were 97.7%, 91.6%, and 81%, respectively. Phylogenetic analyses of Anopheles COI sequences demonstrated a clear separation between almost all species (except for those between An. baimaii and An. dirus), with high bootstrap support values (97%-99%). Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses revealed potential sibling species of An. annularis, An. tessellatus, and An. subpictus in Thailand. Our results indicated that DNA barcoding is an effective molecular approach for the accurate identification of mosquitoes in Thailand.

Indexed as

AnophelesCulicidaeAnimalsDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, MitochondrialElectron Transport Complex IVMosquito VectorsPhylogenyThailandDNA, MitochondrialElectron Transport Complex IV

Identifiers

PMID36137118
PMCPMC9642330

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.