Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38548880›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Low coverage of species constrains the use of DNA barcoding to assess mosquito biodiversity.

Maurício Moraes Zenker, Tatiana Pineda Portella, Felipe Arley Costa Pessoa, Johan Bengtsson-Palme, Pedro Manoel Galetti

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Prospects for Complete DNA Barcode Coverage of the New Zealand Insect Fauna.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maurício Moraes ZenkerLaboratório de Biodiversidade Molecular e Conservação, Departamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 13565-905, Brazil. maurizenker@gmail.com.
Tatiana Pineda PortellaDepartamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Felipe Arley Costa PessoaLaboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia, Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane, Fiocruz Amazônia, Manaus, Brazil.
Johan Bengtsson-PalmeDivision of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Department of Life Sciences, SciLifeLab, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Pedro Manoel GalettiLaboratório de Biodiversidade Molecular e Conservação, Departamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 13565-905, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de São Carlos · BRFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 101450/2022-2Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 303524/2019-7Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2017/23548-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mosquitoes (Culicidae) represent the main vector insects globally, and they also inhabit many of the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of the world. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding are now widely used in both research and routine practices involving mosquitoes. However, these methodologies rely on information available in databases consisting of barcode sequences representing taxonomically identified voucher specimens. In this study, we assess the availability of public data for mosquitoes in the main online databases, focusing specifically on the two most widely used DNA barcoding markers in Culicidae: COI and ITS2. In addition, we test hypotheses on possible factors affecting species coverage (i.e., the percentage of species covered in the online databases) for COI in different countries and the occurrence of the DNA barcode gap for COI. Our findings showed differences in the data publicly available in the repositories, with a taxonomic or species coverage of 28.4-30.11% for COI in BOLD + GenBank, and 12.32% for ITS2 in GenBank. Afrotropical, Australian and Oriental biogeographic regions had the lowest coverages, while Nearctic, Palearctic and Oceanian had the highest. The Neotropical region had an intermediate coverage. In general, countries with a higher diversity of mosquitoes and higher numbers of medically important species had lower coverage. Moreover, countries with a higher number of endemic species tended to have a higher coverage. Although our DNA barcode gap analyses suggested that the species boundaries need to be revised in half of the mosquito species available in the databases, additional data must be gathered to confirm these results and to allow explaining the occurrence of the DNA barcode gap. We hope this study can help guide regional species inventories of mosquitoes and the completion of a publicly available reference library of DNA barcodes for all mosquito species.

Indexed as

CulicidaeAnimalsAustraliaBiodiversityDNADNA Barcoding, TaxonomicMosquito VectorsDNA

Identifiers

PMID38548880
PMCPMC10978826
OpenAlexW4393278906

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.