ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring the potential of the COI gene marker for DNA barcoding of planktonic foraminifera.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabarcoding is a cornerstone of modern ecology, but its accuracy is dependent on the chosen gene marker. While the small subunit ribosomal DNA (SSU) is a powerful tool to describe protist diversity, its reliability in retrieving the composition of communities is less obvious. It is particularly challenging to obtain quantitative estimates of abundance in planktonic foraminifera, where the variability of the SSU gene copy number can span three orders of magnitude. As an alternative, we explored the potential of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) marker. We developed a reference barcode library of 130 sequences of a 1200 bp long COI fragment belonging to 26 morphospecies of foraminifera and performed 201 single-cell qPCR quantifications to evaluate the relationship between the number of COI copies, and the size of individual foraminifera. We found that the COI evolves between 25 and 1000 times slower than the SSU and therefore has a poor taxonomic resolution. However, we observed a significant relationship between COI copy number and foraminifera size. These results suggest that SSU and COI can play complementary roles: the SSU is well-suited for capturing taxonomic diversity, while the COI is useful to retrieve crude information on the community composition.
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.