ArticleMicroorganisms2025
Limitations of 18S rDNA Sequence in Species-Level Classification of Dictyostelids.
Article in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- SURE-Pipe: a pipeline to compare genomes and extract shared and unique regions.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- The complete mitochondrial genome data ofData in brief · 2026Article
- Molecular and morphological characteristics ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Rhizosphere Soil of Maize in Northern Xinjiang, China, and Evaluation of Inoculation Benefits of Three Strains.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The overlooked amoebae of an agroecosystem of black soil land in China: five new species of dictyostelids.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- From seagrass roots to saline soils: discovery of two new genera inIMA fungus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dictyostelid species classification has traditionally relied on morphology, a time-intensive method requiring expert knowledge. This study evaluated the potential and limitations of using the 18S rDNA sequence for species-level classification. 18S rDNA sequences of 16 samples from the Dicty stock center, including 14 samples found in Thailand, were analyzed. Signature sequence analyses confirmed genus-level identification with high accuracy. These sequences were analyzed alongside 309 database entries retrieved from the GenBank database. The analyses confirmed genus-level identification accuracy but highlighted challenges in distinguishing species due to overlapping intraspecific and interspecific variations, negative barcoding gaps, and incorrectly grouped samples to putative taxa by species delimitation analyses. Species delimitation methods, including maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic analysis, achieved limited success, with ML showing the highest accuracy but not exceeding 50%. However, species with high barcoding gaps, such as
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.