ArticleInsects2025
Questionable Species Names for Distinct Species Clusters: An Empirical Test of the BOLD Molecular Identification Engine.
Article in Insects, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA barcoding is an effective method for species identification, but its practical application, as implemented in the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD), faces numerous challenges. In our work, we conducted an empirical test of this approach using butterflies of the Volga River region in eastern Europe as a model system. We demonstrate that DNA barcoding is a powerful tool for identifying species clusters of the local fauna studied. However, assigning the identified clusters to scientific species names using BOLD was problematic for more than half of the species analyzed. The reasons for these problems are numerous errors in (1) species and even (2) generic identifications of DNA barcodes in the BOLD database (30% and 26% of all problematic cases, respectively), (3) similarity of DNA barcodes in different species (22%), (4) unresolved taxonomic problems associated with the species names that BOLD suggests as identifications (18%), (5) anomalous barcodes (2%), and (6) incompleteness of the BOLD database (2%). Solving problems 1, 2 and 5 requires improving the DNA barcode curation system and minimization of the identification errors in the BOLD database. Problems 3 and 6 can be partly solved by accumulating DNA barcodes, especially barcodes of local faunas, since populations of different species with identical DNA barcodes often have non-overlapping areas. Problem 4 is the most difficult and requires further intensive taxonomic research to solve it.
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.