ArticlePloS one2023
Taxonomic identification accuracy from BOLD and GenBank databases using over a thousand insect DNA barcodes from Colombia.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A DNA Barcode Reference Library for Trichoptera of Jingpo Lake: Taxonomic Diversity and Molecular Identification Basics.Insects · 2026Article
- Leakage-Safe ITS1 Identification of Fasciola hepatica and Fasciola gigantica with Reverse-Complement-Invariant CNN Inference.Acta parasitologica · 2026Article
- Article
- A Regional DNA Barcode Library for Northern Rocky Mountain Arthropods to Support Biodiversity and Molecular Ecological Research.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Carpenter bees (Apidae:PeerJ · 2026Article
- Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics.Genes · 2025Review
- DNA barcoding and blood meal profiling of Ethiopian mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae): insights into species identification and host preferences.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Article
- DNA barcoding for elasmobranch diversity assessment in Thailand: Its advantages and limitations.PloS one · 2025Article
- Identification of BOLD engine deficiencies and suggestions for improvement based on a curated Tachina (Diptera) record set.PloS one · 2025Article
- Most soil and litter arthropods are unidentifiable based on current DNA barcode reference libraries.Current zoology · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent declines of insect populations at high rates have resulted in the need to develop a quick method to determine their diversity and to process massive data for the identification of species of highly diverse groups. A short sequence of DNA from COI is widely used for insect identification by comparing it against sequences of known species. Repositories of sequences are available online with tools that facilitate matching of the sequences of interest to a known individual. However, the performance of these tools can differ. Here we aim to assess the accuracy in identification of insect taxonomic categories from two repositories, BOLD Systems and GenBank. This was done by comparing the sequence matches between the taxonomist identification and the suggested identification from the platforms. We used 1,160 COI sequences representing eight orders of insects from Colombia. After the comparison, we reanalyzed the results from a representative subset of the data from the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera). Overall, BOLD systems outperformed GenBank, and the performance of both engines differed by orders and other taxonomic categories (species, genus and family). Higher rates of accurate identification were obtained at family and genus levels. The accuracy was higher in BOLD for the order Coleoptera at family level, for Coleoptera and Lepidoptera at genus and species level. Other orders performed similarly in both repositories. Moreover, the Scarabaeinae subset showed that species were correctly identified only when BOLD match percentage was above 93.4% and a total of 85% of the samples were correctly assigned to a taxonomic category. These results accentuate the great potential of the identification engines to place insects accurately into their respective taxonomic categories based on DNA barcodes and highlight the reliability of BOLD Systems for insect identification in the absence of a large reference database for a highly diverse country.
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.