Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Testing the Reliability of Genetic Methods of Species Identification via Simulation

Ross, Howard A., Murugan, Sumathi, Sibon Li, Wai Lok·2008·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Although genetic methods of species identification, especially DNA barcoding, are strongly debated, tests of these methods have been restricted to a few empirical cases for pragmatic reasons. Here we use simulation to test the performance of methods based on sequence comparison (BLAST and genetic distance) and tree topology over a wide range of evolutionary scenarios. Sequences were simulated on a range of gene trees spanning almost three orders of magnitude in tree depth and in coalescent depth; that is, deep or shallow trees with deep or shallow coalescences. When the query's conspecific sequences were included in the reference alignment, the rate of positive identification was related to the degree to which different species were genetically differentiated. The BLAST, distance, and liberal tree-based methods returned higher rates of correct identification than did the strict tree-based requirement that the query was within, but not sister to, a single-species clade. Under this more conservative approach, ambiguous outcomes occurred in inverse proportion to the number of reference sequences per species. When the query's conspecific sequences were not in the reference alignment, only the strict tree-based approach was relatively immune to making false-positive identifications. Thresholds affected the rates at which false-positive identifications were made when the query's species was unrepresented in the reference alignment but did not otherwise influence outcomes. A conservative approach using the strict tree-based method should be used initially in large-scale identification systems, with effort made to maximize sequence sampling within species. Once the genetic variation within a taxonomic group is well characterized and the taxonomy resolved, then the choice of method used should be dictated by considerations of computational efficiency. The requirement for extensive genetic sampling may render these techniques inappropriate in some circumstances.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10635150802032990

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
Ross, H. A., Murugan, S., & Sibon Li, W. L.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2008-04-01
Volume
57
Issue
2
Pages
216-230
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2059934244
Cited by
351
References
41
FWCI
16.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Testing the Reliability of Genetic Methods of Species Identification via Simulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150802032990
The paper
Ross, H. A., Murugan, S., & Sibon Li, W. L. (2008). Testing the Reliability of Genetic Methods of Species Identification via Simulation. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802032990

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.