A comparison of algorithms for the identification of specimens using DNA barcodes: examples from gymnosperms

By Damon P. Little, Dennis W. Stevenson. Cladistics, 2007

339 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16f1d0d7aa148dc6f64442130cfe589e7ee0e297

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

A DNA barcode for land plants (2009, background): “The unique identification to species level in 72% of cases and to ‘species groups’ in the remainder will be useful for many applications of DNA barcoding such as studies of plant-animal interactions (15), establishing whether plant products in international trade belong to protected species (9, 16, ”
Gene flow and species delimitation. (2009, background): “For instance, organelle DNA sequences have proved particularly useful in delimiting taxonomically problematic species in Lepidoptera [3] and birds [4,5], whereas being much less successful in flies [35], beetles [6], grasshoppers [36] or plants [ 37 ].”
A Two-Locus Global DNA Barcode for Land Plants: The Coding rbcL Gene Complements the Non-Coding trnH-psbA Spacer Region (2007, methodology): “Search algorithms that use indels as characters should then have greater power to discriminate through exclusion of sequences that do not align and thereby reduce the database population against which the query sequence is compared [22].”
Intraspecific ITS Variability in the Kingdom Fungi as Expressed in the International Sequence Databases and Its Implications for Molecular Species Identification (2008, background): “Little and Stevenson, 2007) and indeed the use of a single, defi ning sequence as arbiter of conspecifi city in the fi rst place.”
Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Hennig’s unfinished revolution (2008, background): “The Achilles’ heel of these ‘barcoders’ is the theoretical weakness of DNA barcoding as it is currently advocated (Prendini, 2005; Wheeler, 2005; Little & Stevenson, 2007).”
Multiple Multilocus DNA Barcodes from the Plastid Genome Discriminate Plant Species Equally Well (2008, neutral): “, [16], [17]).”
Current progress in DNA barcoding and future implications for entomology (2011, background): “The accuracy of the character-based approach tends to be low without a comprehensive library of species or species complexes (Little & Stevenson 2007).”
Testing the reliability of genetic methods of species identification via simulation. (2008, background): “Recent tests of the barcoding methods (Little and Stevenson, 2007; Meier et al., 2006; Meyer and Paulay, 2005) have been based on a specific well-sampled group of organisms and a single or few genes.”