The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospects for fungus identification using CO1 DNA barcodes, with Penicillium as a test case
Open accessAbstract
DNA barcoding systems employ a short, standardized gene region to identify species. A 648-bp segment of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase 1 (CO1) is the core barcode region for animals, but its utility has not been tested in fungi. This study began with an examination of patterns of sequence divergences in this gene region for 38 fungal taxa with full CO1 sequences. Because these results suggested that CO1 could be effective in species recognition, we designed primers for a 545-bp fragment of CO1 and generated sequences for multiple strains from 58 species of Penicillium subgenus Penicillium and 12 allied species. Despite the frequent literature reports of introns in fungal mitochondrial genomes, we detected introns in only 2 of 370 Penicillium strains. Representatives from 38 of 58 species formed cohesive assemblages with distinct CO1 sequences, and all cases of sequence sharing involved known species complexes.CO1 sequence divergences averaged 0.06% within species, less than for internal transcribed spacer nrDNA or β-tubulin sequences (BenA).CO1 divergences between species averaged 5.6%, comparable to internal transcribed spacer, but less than values for BenA(14.4%). Although the latter gene delivered higher taxonomic resolution, the amplification and alignment of CO1 was simpler. The development of a barcoding system for fungi that shares a common gene target with other kingdoms would be a significant advance.
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
Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics
Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135848.001.0001 · Cited by 8,012
Cited by
Colletotrichum – current status and future directions
Cannon, P. F., Damm, U., Johnston, P. R., & Weir, B. S. (2012) · Studies in Mycology · doi:10.3114/sim0014 · Cited by 1,105
Colletotrichum gloeosporioides: pathogen of anthracnose disease in mango (Mangifera indica L.)
Kamle, M., & Kumar, P. (2016) · Fungal Biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27312-9_9 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Seifert, K. A., Samson, R. A., deWaard, J. R., Houbraken, J., Lévesque, C. A., Moncalvo, J.-M., Louis-Seize, G., & Hebert, P. D. N.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2007-03-06
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3901-3906
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2109782899
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Prospects for fungus identification using CO1 DNA barcodes, with Penicillium as a test case. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0611691104
- The paper
- Seifert, K. A., Samson, R. A., deWaard, J. R., Houbraken, J., Lévesque, C. A., Moncalvo, J.-M., Louis-Seize, G., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2007). Prospects for fungus identification using CO1 DNA barcodes, with Penicillium as a test case. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611691104
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.