Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40458985›Full record

ReviewMolecular ecology2025

In Vouchers We (Hope to) Trust: Unveiling Hidden Errors in GenBank's Tetrapod Taxonomic Foundations.

Albert Carné, David R Vieites, Matthijs P van den Burg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Albert CarnéScience and Business S.L., Edificio CITEXVI, Campus Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Galicia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7920-8159
David R VieitesIntegrative Marine Ecology Group. Department of Ecology and Marine Resources, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (IIM), CSIC, Vigo, Galicia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5551-7419
Matthijs P van den BurgDepartment of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN), CSIC, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8276-0713

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Agencia Estatal de Investigación. 10.13039/501100011033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic repositories are invaluable resources foundational to various biological disciplines. While their data and metadata reliability are essential for robust research outcomes, numerous studies have highlighted data quality and consistency issues. Here, we detect and quantify errors at the most fundamental level by analysing the congruence of sequences derived from the same genetic marker and specimen voucher across tetrapods. Our analysis reveals that 32% of re-sequenced vouchers (with identical field or museum numbers) yield unequal sequences, ranging from a few mutations to significant divergences (0.06%-33.95%). These divergences may result from sample misidentification, labelling errors, fidelity disparities between sequencing methods, or contamination at various stages of the research process. Our findings demonstrate errors within GenBank at its most basal level and suggest that, although undetectable, a similar error rate likely exists in non-re-sequenced data. These previously overlooked errors are concerning because they arise from replicated experiments, which are uncommon, and raise serious questions about the reliability of non-re-sequenced specimens. Such errors can compromise the accuracy of biodiversity assessments (e.g., taxonomic assessment, eDNA and barcoding), phylogenetic analyses and conservation planning by artificially inflating the intraspecific divergence or misidentifying (to-be-described) species. Additionally, the accuracy of large-scale biological studies that rely on such data can be compromised. Our concerning results call for protocols ensuring sample traceability to the specimens or tissues during the whole process of data generation, analysis and deposition in a database. We propose a third-party annotation system for individual GenBank records that would allow flagging common errors and alert both the original submitter and all users to potential problems without modifying the original records.

Indexed as

Databases, Nucleic AcidAnimalsDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNAdata qualityDNA sequencingGenBankgenetic dataintraspecific diversitymuseum specimensrepositoriestaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID40458985
PMCPMC12186718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.