ArticleMolecular biotechnology2025
DNA Barcoding of Invasive Terrestrial Plant Species in India.
Article in Molecular biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing plant DNA barcoding: integrating chloroplast genome sequencing, cryptic diversity discovery and machine learning.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive plants are known to cause biodiversity loss and pose a major risk to human health and environment. Identification of invasive plants and distinguishing them from native species has been relied on morphological examination. Stringent requirement of floral characters and decreasing number of expert taxonomists are making conventional morphology-based identification system tedious and resource-intensive. DNA barcoding may help in quick identification of invasive species if distinct sequence divergence pattern at various taxonomic levels is observed. The present work evaluates the utility of four molecular markers; rbcL, matK, their combination (rbcL + matK), and psbA-trnH for identification of 37 invasive plant species from India and also in distinguishing them from 97 native species. A psbA-trnH locus was found to be of restricted utility in this work as it was represented by the members of a single family. A hierarchical increase in K2P mean divergence across different taxonomic levels was found to be the maximum for matK alone followed by rbcL + matK and rbcL alone, respectively. NJ clustering analysis, however, confirmed the suitability of combined locus (rbcL + matK) over individual rbcL and matK as the DNA barcode. RbcL showed the lowest resolution power among the three markers studied. MatK exhibited much better performance compared to rbcL alone in identifying most of the species accurately although it failed to show monophyly of genus Dinebra. Two families; Asteraceae and Poaceae, remained polyphyletic in the trees constructed by all three markers. Combined locus (rbcL + matK) was found to be the most suitable marker as it raised the resolution power of both the markers and could identify more than 90% of genera correctly. Phylogenetic tree constructed by Maximum-Parsimony method using combined locus as a molecular marker exhibited the best resolution, thus, supporting the significance of two-locus combination of rbcL + matK for barcoding invasive plant species from India. Present study contributes to the global barcode data of invasive plant species by adding fifty-one new sequences to it. Effective barcoding of additional number of native as well as invasive plant species from India is possible using this dual locus if it is combined with one or more new molecular plastid markers. Expansion of barcode database with a focus on barcode performance optimisation to improve discrimination ability at species level can be undertaken in future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38430432What 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.