FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W103716615> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W103716615 abstract "DNA barcoding is the technique of sequencing a short fragment of cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) mtDNA – a ‘DNA barcode’ - from a taxonomically unknown organism. This DNA barcode is then matched against a reference library of barcodes of known species origin to make a species identification. Since 2004 an international consortium has been promoting DNA barcoding as a global standard for taxonomic identifications (Savolainen et al. 2005). While we applaud Kumar et al. (2012) for bringing DNA barcoding to the attention of researchers in Malaysia, we have concerns about their understanding of the theory and methods of DNA barcoding which we discuss below.One major advantage of DNA barcoding over traditional species identification methods is the ability to correctly identify organisms from any life cycle stage to species. DNA barcoding has this capacity because intraspecific variation in DNA barcodes is generally much lower than interspecific variation between DNA barcodes (Savolainen et al. 2005), and crucially, because an organism’s DNA barcode does not change as the organism progresses from one life stage to the next. The integrity of DNA sequences through replication and organism growth is fundamental to their role as the “blueprint of life” (Hill 2006). Kumar et al. (2012) sequenced DNA barcodes from giant tiger prawns and report the pattern typically seen in DNA barcoding studies: “The average pair-wise distance within the sequences of different stages of P. monodon was two times lesser than the pair-wise distance of the out-group used [sic]”. Given the reported success of DNA barcoding at effectively identifying all individuals to species, the title of the article seems incongruous; what or where is the “Limit”? Kumar et al. (2012)’s conclusion points to the source of this incongruence: “However, it (COI) failed to segregate the different developmental stages to its corresponding life history stages [sic]”. If Kumar et al. (2012) intended to use a molecular technique to segregate individuals of P. monodon into different life stages, as implied in their objectives and conclusion, they took a fundamentally wrong approach; DNA characters are independent of life stage. We suggest instead, they focus on RNA and differential gene expression (e.g. Perez-Porro et al. 2013). We can state confidently that increasing the sample size will not “reveal the efficiency of COI gene in pinpointing various life history stages of any organism” as Kumar et al. (2012) postulated.It is curious that Kumar et al. (2012) did not comment on the intraspecific distances observed within their P. monodon DNA barcodes (Figure 1(a)). We downloaded the barcodes from GenBank (GQ461913-GQ461918) and discovered the distances were an artefact of poor sequence editing and alignment. After removal of questionable nucleotides at the sequence edges and careful alignment (see Wilson 2012 for details on this procedure), Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) distances between the most distant barcodes were 1.3% (Figure 1(b)). Besides, the values from Kumar et al. (2012) are nonsensical as the “outgroup” sequences are a different fragment of COI and cannot be aligned to the “ingroup” (see alignment file at http://www.ukm.my/jsm/english_journals/vol42num12_2013/pg 1827-1829.html.).‘Blasting’ the P. monodon barcodes against BOLD (boldsystems.org) revealed two distinct clusters (Figure 1(c)). The second cluster contained barcodes from India and Africa which matched closely with all the barcodes of Kumar et al. (2012). Dendograms of COI sequences (neighbour-joining trees are dendograms not a “phylograms” or “phylogenetic trees”) consistently showed two clusters within P. monodon, separated by K2P distance of >7% (Figure 1(b)-1(c)). Studies of COI variation in crustaceans have considered K2P ‘intraspecific’ distance of >1.3% (Lefebure et al. 2006) to be suggestive of unrecognised species. Lavery et al. (2004) previously suggested the presence of cryptic species within P. monodon based on mtDNA.We suggest that rather than focussing on a misconceived application of DNA barcoding, a more fruitful line of investigation may be sequencing (with careful editing and alignment) of nuclear regions to corroborate the existence of unrecognised species within P. monodon." @default.
• W103716615 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W103716615 creator A5033423741 @default.
• W103716615 creator A5079266868 @default.
• W103716615 date "2013-12-01" @default.
• W103716615 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W103716615 title "DNA barcoding can successfully identify penaeus monodon, associate life cycle stages, and generate hypotheses of unrecognised diversity" @default.
• W103716615 cites W130819592 @default.
• W103716615 cites W2076812011 @default.
• W103716615 cites W2103961200 @default.
• W103716615 cites W2151302442 @default.
• W103716615 cites W2308540513 @default.
• W103716615 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W103716615 type Work @default.
• W103716615 sameAs 103716615 @default.
• W103716615 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W103716615 countsByYear W1037166152015 @default.
• W103716615 countsByYear W1037166152019 @default.
• W103716615 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W103716615 hasAuthorship W103716615A5033423741 @default.
• W103716615 hasAuthorship W103716615A5079266868 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C137858568 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C141732470 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C24586158 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C2776841711 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C51679486 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C552990157 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W103716615 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C104317684 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C111919701 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C137858568 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C141732470 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C24586158 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C2776841711 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C41008148 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C51679486 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C54355233 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C552990157 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C78458016 @default.
• W103716615 hasConceptScore W103716615C86803240 @default.
• W103716615 hasLocation W1037166151 @default.
• W103716615 hasOpenAccess W103716615 @default.
• W103716615 hasPrimaryLocation W1037166151 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W1895143607 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W1982100665 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2000071479 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2019378096 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2029493835 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2040452926 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2056315504 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2074832420 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2100896010 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2108268490 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2110504835 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2118646034 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2164908609 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2193779025 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2393994888 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2461247522 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W2618011650 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W3098196796 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W3179794177 @default.
• W103716615 hasRelatedWork W74645070 @default.
• W103716615 isParatext "false" @default.
• W103716615 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W103716615 magId "103716615" @default.
• W103716615 workType "article" @default.