Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

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 access
Nilsson, R. Henrik, Tedersoo, Leho, Abarenkov, Kessy, Ryberg, Martin, Kristiansson, Erik, Hartmann, Martin, Schoch, Conrad L., Nylander, Johan A. A., Bergsten, Johannes, Porter, Teresita M., Jumpponen, Ari, Vaishampayan, Parag, Ovaskainen, Otso, Hallenberg, Nils, Bengtsson-Palme, Johan, Eriksson, K. Martin, Larsson, Karl-Henrik, Larsson, Ellen, Kõljalg, Urmas·2012·MycoKeys

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3897/mycokeys.4.3606

Cites

2 of 2 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

Show all 2 references

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
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.