The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification
Abstract
Approximately 600-bp sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have been designated as "DNA barcodes" and have become one of the most contentious and animated issues in the application of genetic information to global biodiversity assessment and species identification. Advocates of DNA barcodes have received extensive attention and promotion in many popular and refereed scientific publications. However, we suggest that the utility of barcodes is suspect and vulnerable to technical challenges that are particularly pertinent to mtDNA. We review the natural history of mtDNA and discuss problems for barcoding which are particularly associated with mtDNA and inheritance, including reduced effective population size, maternal inheritance, recombination, inconsistent mutation rate, heteroplasmy, and compounding evolutionary processes. The aforementioned could significantly limit the application and utility of mtDNA barcoding efforts. Furthermore, global use of barcodes will require application and acceptance of a barcode-based species concept that has not been evaluated in the context of the extensive literature concerning species designation. Implementation of mtDNA barcodes in spite of technical and practical shortcomings we discuss may degrade the longstanding synthesis of genetic and organism-based research and will not advance studies ranging from genomic evolution to biodiversity assessment.
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
DAYRAT, B. (2005) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00503.x · Cited by 2,007
DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 · Cited by 1,957
Cited by
Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding
TABERLET, P., COISSAC, E., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05470.x · Cited by 1,907
Integrative Taxonomy: A Multisource Approach to Exploring Biodiversity
Schlick-Steiner, B. C., Steiner, F. M., Seifert, B., Stauffer, C., Christian, E., & Crozier, R. H. (2010) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085432 · Cited by 1,080
The campaign to DNA barcode all fishes, FISH‐BOL
Ward, R. D., Hanner, R., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2009) · Journal of Fish Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02080.x · Cited by 964
The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding
Collins, R. A., & Cruickshank, R. H. (2013) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12046 · Cited by 560
DNA Barcoding of Marine Metazoa
Bucklin, A., Steinke, D., & Blanco-Bercial, L. (2011) · Annual Review of Marine Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-080950 · Cited by 559
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubinoff, D., Cameron, S., & Will, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Heredity
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 581-594
- ISSN
- 0022-1503 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7333
- OpenAlex
- W2161005004
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.94
- 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: A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jhered/esl036
- The paper
- Rubinoff, D., Cameron, S., & Will, K. (2006). A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification. Journal of Heredity. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esl036
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.