The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Molecular Markers in Phylogenetic Studies-A Review
Open accessAbstract
Uses of molecular markers in the phylogenetic studies of various organisms have become increasingly important in recent times.This review gives an overview of different molecular markers employed by researchers for the purpose of phylogenetic studies.Availability of fast DNA sequencing techniques along with the development of robust statistical analysis methods, provided a new momentum to this field.In this context, utility of different nuclear encoded genes (like 16S rRNA, 5S rRNA, 28S rRNA) mitochondrial (cytochrome oxidase, mitochondrial 12S, cytochrome b, control region) and few chloroplast encoded genes (like rbcL, matK, rpl16) are discussed.Criteria for choosing suitable molecular markers and steps leading to the construction of phylogenetic trees have been discussed.Although widely practised even now, traditional morphology based systems of classification of organisms have some limitations.On the other hand it appears that the use of molecular markers, though relatively recent in popularity and are not free entirely of flaws, can complement the traditional morphology based method for phylogenetic studies.
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
PHYLIP-Phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2)
Felsenstein, J. (1989) · Cladistics · Cited by 17,682
Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya.
Woese, C. R., Kandler, O., & Wheelis, M. L. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576 · Cited by 6,128
Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins.
ZUCKERKANDL, E., & PAULING, L. (1965) · Evolving Genes and Proteins · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-2734-4.50017-6 · Cited by 3,020
The characterization of enzymatically amplified eukaryotic 16S-like rRNA-coding regions
Medlin, L., Elwood, H. J., Stickel, S., & Sogin, M. L. (1988) · Gene · doi:10.1016/0378-1119(88)90066-2 · Cited by 2,988
Wilson, E. O. (1992) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 2,468
Clarridge, J. E. (2004) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.17.4.840-862.2004 · Cited by 2,148
Phylogenetics of Seed Plants: An Analysis of Nucleotide Sequences from the Plastid Gene rbcL
Chase, M. W., Soltis, D. E., Olmstead, R. G., Morgan, D., Les, D. H., Mishler, B. D., Duvall, M. R., Price, R. A., Hills, H. G., Qiu, Y.-L., et al. (1993) · Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden · doi:10.2307/2399846 · Cited by 2,032
Gray, M. W., Burger, G., & Lang, B. F. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.283.5407.1476 · Cited by 1,719
Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics
Vandamme, P. A. R., Pot, B., Gillis, M. F., de Vos, P., Kersters, K., & Swings, J. (1996) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.60.2.407-438.1996 · Cited by 1,709
Cited by
Imaging biofilms using fluorescence in situ hybridization: seeing is believing
Barbosa, A., Miranda, S., Azevedo, N. F., Cerqueira, L., & Azevedo, A. S. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1195803 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Amit Roy, S. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology
- Publisher
- OMICS Publishing Group
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 02
- Issue
- 02
- ISSN
- 2329-9002 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136911182
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Molecular Markers in Phylogenetic Studies-A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4172/2329-9002.1000131
- The paper
- Amit Roy, S. R. (2014). Molecular Markers in Phylogenetic Studies-A Review. Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9002.1000131
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.
