The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deciphering amphibian diversity through DNA barcoding: chances and challenges
Open accessAbstract
Amphibians globally are in decline, yet there is still a tremendous amount of unrecognized diversity, calling for an acceleration of taxonomic exploration. This process will be greatly facilitated by a DNA barcoding system; however, the mitochondrial population structure of many amphibian species presents numerous challenges to such a standardized, single locus, approach. Here we analyse intra- and interspecific patterns of mitochondrial variation in two distantly related groups of amphibians, mantellid frogs and salamanders, to determine the promise of DNA barcoding with cytochrome oxidase subunit I (cox1) sequences in this taxon. High intraspecific cox1 divergences of 7–14% were observed (18% in one case) within the whole set of amphibian sequences analysed. These high values are not caused by particularly high substitution rates of this gene but by generally deep mitochondrial divergences within and among amphibian species. Despite these high divergences,cox1 sequences were able to correctly identify species including disparate geographic variants. The main problems with cox1 barcoding of amphibians are (i) the high variability of priming sites that hinder the application of universal primers to all species and (ii) the observed distinct overlap of intraspecific and interspecific divergence values, which implies difficulties in the definition of threshold values to identify candidate species. Common discordances between geographical signatures of mitochondrial and nuclear markers in amphibians indicate that a single-locus approach can be problematic when high accuracy of DNA barcoding is required. We suggest that a number of mitochondrial and nuclear genes may be used as DNA barcoding markers to complement cox1.
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
Kimura, M. (1980) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01731581 · Cited by 29,778
Cited by
ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation
PUILLANDRE, N., LAMBERT, A., BROUILLET, S., & ACHAZ, G. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05239.x · Cited by 3,324
DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics
Hajibabaei, M., Singer, G. A. C., Hebert, P. D. N., & Hickey, D. A. (2007) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2007.02.001 · Cited by 1,160
Valentini, A., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.011 · Cited by 1,122
DNA barcoding the floras of biodiversity hotspots
Lahaye, R., van der Bank, M., Bogarin, D., Warner, J., Pupulin, F., Gigot, G., Maurin, O., Duthoit, S., Barraclough, T. G., & Savolainen, V. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0709936105 · Cited by 911
An In silico approach for the evaluation of DNA barcodes
Ficetola, G., Coissac, E., Zundel, S., Riaz, T., Shehzad, W., Bessière, J., Taberlet, P., & Pompanon, F. (2010) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-434 · Cited by 499
Metadata
- Authors
- Vences, M., Thomas, M., Bonett, R. M., & Vieites, D. R.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2005-09-14
- Volume
- 360
- Issue
- 1462
- Pages
- 1859-1868
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2097709171
- Cited by
- 541
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.86
- 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: Deciphering amphibian diversity through DNA barcoding: chances and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2005.1717
- The paper
- Vences, M., Thomas, M., Bonett, R. M., & Vieites, D. R. (2005). Deciphering amphibian diversity through DNA barcoding: chances and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1717
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.