ArticlePloS one2025
DNA barcoding for elasmobranch diversity assessment in Thailand: Its advantages and limitations.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
The assessment of elasmobranch biodiversity in Thailand benefits greatly from the application of DNA barcoding, which helps mitigate the challenge posed by a shortage of expert taxonomists. Fragments of COI and ND2 mitochondrial DNA were examined, and the strengths and weaknesses of these two markers were compared. In this study, DNA products from 153 elasmobranch samples were amplifiable and revealed a total of 28 shark species and 32 batoid species. Many species could be confidently identified as their morphological characteristics aligned with DNA barcodes. However, several exceptions were recognized. The absence of reference sequences for rare species presented a challenge for species verification, and the misidentification of reference sequences, as well as changes in species names due to taxonomic revisions, added complexity when comparing DNA barcoding sequences. Conflicts between morphology and genetics were also observed. While intraspecific genetic variation based on both DNA barcodes generally indicated 0-2% variation, this metric could not always be used for species delimitation. This was particularly true for species displaying low genetic variation among closely related species and species where cryptic diversity remained hidden and yet to be uncovered. In such cases, the morphological characteristics of the samples served as the primary means of species identification. Despite these challenges, DNA barcoding remains an invaluable tool for biodiversity assessment, especially in light of the shortage of skilled experts, and for identification of products made from vulnerable species. However, it is essential to exercise caution and be aware of these complexities in its application.
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.