ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024
A Measure of the DNA Barcode Gap for Applied and Basic Research.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Identification of plastome-derived mini barcodes by DNA metabarcoding and comparative effectiveness to decipher their strength and resolving power for taxonomic topology-based phylogenetic determination of Chenopodium quinoa.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Integrative assessment of species-level genetic markers for the diagnosis of pathogenicFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Questionable Species Names for Distinct Species Clusters: An Empirical Test of the BOLD Molecular Identification Engine.Insects · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA barcoding has largely established itself as a mainstay for rapid molecular taxonomic identification in both academic and applied research. The use of DNA barcoding as a molecular identification method depends on a "DNA barcode gap"-the separation between the maximum within-species difference and the minimum between-species difference. Previous work indicates the presence of a gap hinges on sampling effort for focal taxa and their close relatives. Furthermore, both theory and empirical work indicate a gap may not occur for related pairs of biological species. Here, we present a novel evaluation approach in the form of an easily calculated set of nonparametric metrics to quantify the extent of proportional overlap in inter- and intraspecific distributions of pairwise differences among target species and their conspecifics. The metrics are based on a simple count of the number of overlapping records for a species falling within the bounds of maximum intraspecific distance and minimum interspecific distance. Our approach takes advantage of the asymmetric directionality inherent in pairwise genetic distance distributions, which has not been previously done in the DNA barcoding literature. We apply the metrics to the predatory diving beetle genus Agabus as a case study because this group poses significant identification challenges due to its morphological uniformity despite both relative sampling ease and well-established taxonomy. Results herein show that target species and their nearest neighbor species were found to be tightly clustered and therefore difficult to distinguish. Such findings demonstrate that DNA barcoding can fail to fully resolve species in certain cases. Moving forward, we suggest the implementation of the proposed metrics be integrated into a common framework to be reported in any study that uses DNA barcoding for identification. In so doing, the importance of the DNA barcode gap and its components for the success of DNA-based identification using DNA barcodes can be better appreciated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38683332What 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.