The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multiple Multilocus DNA Barcodes from the Plastid Genome Discriminate Plant Species Equally Well
Open accessAbstract
A universal barcode system for land plants would be a valuable resource, with potential utility in fields as diverse as ecology, floristics, law enforcement and industry. However, the application of plant barcoding has been constrained by a lack of consensus regarding the most variable and technically practical DNA region(s). We compared eight candidate plant barcoding regions from the plastome and one from the mitochondrial genome for how well they discriminated the monophyly of 92 species in 32 diverse genera of land plants (N = 251 samples). The plastid markers comprise portions of five coding (rpoB, rpoC1, rbcL, matK and 23S rDNA) and three non-coding (trnH-psbA, atpF-atpH, and psbK-psbI) loci. Our survey included several taxonomically complex groups, and in all cases we examined multiple populations and species. The regions differed in their ability to discriminate species, and in ease of retrieval, in terms of amplification and sequencing success. Single locus resolution ranged from 7% (23S rDNA) to 59% (trnH-psbA) of species with well-supported monophyly. Sequence recovery rates were related primarily to amplification success (85-100% for plastid loci), with matK requiring the greatest effort to achieve reasonable recovery (88% using 10 primer pairs). Several loci (matK, psbK-psbI, trnH-psbA) were problematic for generating fully bidirectional sequences. Setting aside technical issues related to amplification and sequencing, combining the more variable plastid markers provided clear benefits for resolving species, although with diminishing returns, as all combinations assessed using four to seven regions had only marginally different success rates (69-71%; values that were approached by several two- and three-region combinations). This performance plateau may indicate fundamental upper limits on the precision of species discrimination that is possible with DNA barcoding systems that include moderate numbers of plastid markers. Resolution to the contentious debate on plant barcoding should therefore involve increased attention to practical issues related to the ease of sequence recovery, global alignability, and marker redundancy in multilocus plant DNA barcoding systems.
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
Cited by
The application of biotechnology to orchids
Hossain, M. M., Kant, R., Van, P. T., Winarto, B., Zeng, S., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2012.715984 · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- Fazekas, A. J., Burgess, K. S., Kesanakurti, P. R., Graham, S. W., Newmaster, S. G., Husband, B. C., Percy, D. M., Hajibabaei, M., & Barrett, S. C. H.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2008-07-30
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e2802
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146320430
- Cited by
- 694
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 46.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Multiple Multilocus DNA Barcodes from the Plastid Genome Discriminate Plant Species Equally Well. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0002802
- The paper
- Fazekas, A. J., Burgess, K. S., Kesanakurti, P. R., Graham, S. W., Newmaster, S. G., Husband, B. C., Percy, D. M., Hajibabaei, M., & Barrett, S. C. H. (2008). Multiple Multilocus DNA Barcodes from the Plastid Genome Discriminate Plant Species Equally Well. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002802
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.