Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intragenomic variation in the ITS rDNA region obscures phylogenetic relationships and inflates estimates of operational taxonomic units in genus Laetiporus

Lindner, Daniel L., Banik, Mark T.·2011·Mycologia

Abstract

Regions of rDNA are commonly used to infer phylogenetic relationships among fungal species and as DNA barcodes for identification. These regions occur in large tandem arrays, and concerted evolution is believed to reduce intragenomic variation among copies within these arrays, although some variation still might exist. Phylogenetic studies typically use consensus sequencing, which effectively conceals most intragenomic variation, but cloned sequences containing intragenomic variation are becoming prevalent in DNA databases. To understand effects of using cloned rDNA sequences in phylogenetic analyses we amplified and cloned the ITS region from pure cultures of six Laetiporus species and one Wolfiporia species (Basidiomycota, Polyporales). An average of 66 clones were selected randomly and sequenced from 21 cultures, producing a total of 1399 interpretable sequences. Significant variation (≥ 5% variation in sequence similarity) was observed among ITS copies within six cultures from three species clades (L. cincinnatus, L. sp. clade J, and Wolfiporia dilatohypha) and phylogenetic analyses with the cloned sequences produced different trees relative to analyses with consensus sequences. Cloned sequences from L. cincinnatus fell into more than one species clade and numerous cloned L. cincinnatus sequences fell into entirely new clades, which if analyzed on their own most likely would be recognized as "undescribed" or "novel" taxa. The use of a 95% cut off for defining operational taxonomic units (OTUs) produced seven Laetiporus OTUs with consensus ITS sequences and 20 OTUs with cloned ITS sequences. The use of cloned rDNA sequences might be problematic in fungal phylogenetic analyses, as well as in fungal bar-coding initiatives and efforts to detect fungal pathogens in environmental samples.

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 · 10.3852/10-331

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Lindner, D. L., & Banik, M. T.
Venue
Mycologia
Published
2011-07
Volume
103
Issue
4
Pages
731-740
ISSN
  • 0027-5514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-2536
OpenAlex
W2125061007
Cited by
170
References
1
FWCI
18.89
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

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.