The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Five simple guidelines for establishing basic authenticity and reliability of newly generated fungal ITS sequences
Open accessAbstract
Molecular data form an important research tool in most branches of mycology. A non-trivial proportion of the public fungal DNA sequences are, however, compromised in terms of quality and reliability, contributing noise and bias to sequence-borne inferences such as phylogenetic analysis, diversity assessment, and barcoding. In this paper we discuss various aspects and pitfalls of sequence quality assessment. Based on our observations, we provide a set of guidelines to assist in manual quality management of newly generated, near-full-length (Sanger-derived) fungal ITS sequences and to some extent also sequences of shorter read lengths, other genes or markers, and groups of organisms. The guidelines are intentionally non-technical and do not require substantial bioinformatics skills or significant computational power. Despite their simple nature, we feel they would have caught the vast majority of the severely compromised ITS sequences in the public corpus. Our guidelines are nevertheless not infallible, and common sense and intuition remain important elements in the pursuit of compromised sequence data. The guidelines focus on basic sequence authenticity and reliability of the newly generated sequences, and the user may want to consider additional resources and steps to accomplish the best possible quality control. A discussion on the technical resources for further sequence quality management is therefore provided in the supplementary material.
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
Ironing out the wrinkles in the rare biosphere through improved OTU clustering
Huse, S. M., Welch, D. M., Morrison, H. G., & Sogin, M. L. (2010) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02193.x · Cited by 1,346
URL decay in MEDLINE—a 4-year follow-up study
Wren, J. D. (2008) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn127 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Nilsson, R. H., Tedersoo, L., Abarenkov, K., Ryberg, M., Kristiansson, E., Hartmann, M., Schoch, C. L., Nylander, J. A. A., Bergsten, J., Porter, T. M., Jumpponen, A., Vaishampayan, P., Ovaskainen, O., Hallenberg, N., Bengtsson-Palme, J., Eriksson, K. M., Larsson, K.-H., Larsson, E., & Kõljalg, U.
- Venue
- MycoKeys
- Publisher
- Pensoft Publishers
- Published
- 2012-09-05
- Volume
- 4
- Pages
- 37-63
- ISSN
- 1314-4049 (ISSN-L)
- 1314-4057
- OpenAlex
- W2001088260
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.04
- 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: Five simple guidelines for establishing basic authenticity and reliability of newly generated fungal ITS sequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3897/mycokeys.4.3606
- The paper
- Nilsson, R. H., Tedersoo, L., Abarenkov, K., Ryberg, M., Kristiansson, E., Hartmann, M., Schoch, C. L., Nylander, J. A. A., Bergsten, J., Porter, T. M., Jumpponen, A., Vaishampayan, P., Ovaskainen, O., Hallenberg, N., Bengtsson-Palme, J., Eriksson, K. M., Larsson, K.-H., Larsson, E., & Kõljalg, U. (2012). Five simple guidelines for establishing basic authenticity and reliability of newly generated fungal ITS sequences. MycoKeys. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.4.3606
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.