The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation
Open accessAbstract
Species identification lies at the heart of biodiversity studies that has in recent years favoured DNA-based approaches. Microbial Biological Resource Centres are a rich source for diverse and high-quality reference materials in microbiology, and yet the strains preserved in these biobanks have been exploited only on a limited scale to generate DNA barcodes. As part of a project funded in the Netherlands to barcode specimens of major national biobanks, sequences of two nuclear ribosomal genetic markers, the Internal Transcribed Spaces and 5.8S gene (ITS) and the D1/D2 domain of the 26S Large Subunit (LSU), were generated as DNA barcode data for ca. 100 000 fungal strains originally assigned to ca. 17 000 species in the CBS fungal biobank maintained at the Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute, Utrecht. Using more than 24 000 DNA barcode sequences of 12 000 ex-type and manually validated filamentous fungal strains of 7 300 accepted species, the optimal identity thresholds to discriminate filamentous fungal species were predicted as 99.6 % for ITS and 99.8 % for LSU. We showed that 17 % and 18 % of the species could not be discriminated by the ITS and LSU genetic markers, respectively. Among them, ∼8 % were indistinguishable using both genetic markers. ITS has been shown to outperform LSU in filamentous fungal species discrimination with a probability of correct identification of 82 % vs. 77.6 %, and a clustering quality value of 84 % vs. 77.7 %. At higher taxonomic classifications, LSU has been shown to have a better discriminatory power than ITS. With a clustering quality value of 80 %, LSU outperformed ITS in identifying filamentous fungi at the ordinal level. At the generic level, the clustering quality values produced by both genetic markers were low, indicating the necessity for taxonomic revisions at genus level and, likely, for applying more conserved genetic markers or even whole genomes. The taxonomic thresholds predicted for filamentous fungal identification at the genus, family, order and class levels were 94.3 %, 88.5 %, 81.2 % and 80.9 % based on ITS barcodes, and 98.2 %, 96.2 %, 94.7 % and 92.7 % based on LSU barcodes. The DNA barcodes used in this study have been deposited to GenBank and will also be publicly available at the Westerdijk Institute's website as reference sequences for fungal identification, marking an unprecedented data release event in global fungal barcoding efforts to date.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2218 · Cited by 13,376
Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11234 · Cited by 11,726
Schoch, C. L., Seifert, K. A., Huhndorf, S., Robert, V., Spouge, J. L., Levesque, C. A., Chen, W., Fungal Barcoding Consortium, Fungal Barcoding Consortium Author List, Bolchacova, E., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1117018109 · Cited by 5,120
Self-citationSpecies Concepts and Species Delimitation
De Queiroz, K. (2007) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150701701083 · Cited by 4,091
Global diversity and geography of soil fungi
Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M., Põlme, S., Kõljalg, U., Yorou, N. S., Wijesundera, R., Ruiz, L. V., Vasco-Palacios, A. M., Thu, P. Q., Suija, A., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1256688 · Cited by 3,702
Towards a unified paradigm for sequence‐based identification of fungi
Kõljalg, U., Nilsson, R. H., Abarenkov, K., Tedersoo, L., Taylor, A. F. S., Bahram, M., Bates, S. T., Bruns, T. D., Bengtsson‐Palme, J., Callaghan, T. M., et al. (2013) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12481 · Cited by 3,586
Self-citationKim, M., Oh, H.-S., Park, S.-C., & Chun, J. (2014) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.059774-0 · Cited by 3,202
Group1, C. P. W., Hollingsworth, P. M., Forrest, L. L., Spouge, J. L., Hajibabaei, M., Ratnasingham, S., van der Bank, M., Chase, M. W., Cowan, R. S., Erickson, D. L., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0905845106 · Cited by 2,805
Yarza, P., Yilmaz, P., Pruesse, E., Glöckner, F. O., Ludwig, W., Schleifer, K.-H., Whitman, W. B., Euzéby, J., Amann, R., & Rosselló-Móra, R. (2014) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro3330 · Cited by 2,589
Cited by
Fungal Planet description sheets: 785– 867
Crous, P. W., Luangsa-ard, J. J., Wingfield, M. J., Carnegie, A. J., Hernández-Restrepo, M., Lombard, L., Roux, J., Barreto, R. W., Baseia, I. G., Cano-Lira, J. F., et al. (2018) · Persoonia - Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi · doi:10.3767/persoonia.2018.41.12 · Cited by 283
Self-citationFungal Planet description sheets: 951–1041
Crous, P. W., Wingfield, M. J., Lombard, L., Roets, F., Swart, W. J., Alvarado, P., Carnegie, A. J., Moreno, G., Luangsa-Ard, J., Thangavel, R., et al. (2019) · Persoonia - Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi · doi:10.3767/persoonia.2019.43.06 · Cited by 217
Self-citationThe potential role of marine fungi in plastic degradation – a review
Zeghal, E., Vaksmaa, A., Vielfaure, H., Boekhout, T., & Niemann, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.738877 · Cited by 155
Self-citationExtensive Collection of Psychotropic Mushrooms with Determination of Their Tryptamine Alkaloids
Gotvaldová, K., Borovička, J., Hájková, K., Cihlářová, P., Rockefeller, A., & Kuchař, M. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms232214068 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Vu, D., Groenewald, M., de Vries, M., Gehrmann, T., Stielow, B., Eberhardt, U., Al-Hatmi, A., Groenewald, J. Z., Cardinali, G., Houbraken, J., Boekhout, T., Crous, P. W., Robert, V., & Verkley, G. J. M.
- Venue
- Studies in Mycology
- Published
- 2019-03-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-154
- ISSN
- 0166-0616 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2809702633
- Cited by
- 963
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 57.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.simyco.2018.05.001
- The paper
- Vu, D., Groenewald, M., de Vries, M., Gehrmann, T., Stielow, B., Eberhardt, U., Al-Hatmi, A., Groenewald, J. Z., Cardinali, G., Houbraken, J., Boekhout, T., Crous, P. W., Robert, V., & Verkley, G. J. M. (2019). Large-scale generation and analysis of filamentous fungal DNA barcodes boosts coverage for kingdom fungi and reveals thresholds for fungal species and higher taxon delimitation. Studies in Mycology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2018.05.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.