4.4 Article

Evaluation of 10 plant barcodes in Bryophyta (Mosses)

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 36-46

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-6831.2009.00063.x

Keywords

Bryophyta; DNA barcoding; rbcL; rpoC1; rps4; trnH-psbA; trnL-trnF

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2009-LSF-GBOWS-01]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [30770141]
  3. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [S30406]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

DNA barcoding is a molecular tool that uses a standardized DNA region to identify species. Our preliminary study reported here is the first attempt to specifically focus on universality and attributes of candidate barcodes across a wide systematic range of mosses. We tested eight previously proposed plant barcoding regions (atpf-atpH, ITS2, matK, psbK-psbI, rbcL, rpoB, rpoC1, and trnH-psbA) and two popular phylogenetic markers (rps4 and trnL-trnF of cpDNA) in 49 moss species and 9 liverwort species, representing half of the orders in moss lineages. The ITS2, rbcL, rpoC1, rps4, trnH-psbA and trnL-trnF regions showed good universality, and therefore the efficacy of these loci as DNA barcodes was further evaluated in 36 mosses and 2 liverworts, each of which included two to three individuals per taxa. The five loci, viz. rbcL, rpoC1, rps4, trnH-psbA and trnL-trnF, were easy to amplify and sequence and showed significant inter-specific genetic variability, making them potentially useful DNA barcodes for mosses. The best performing single loci were the rbcL and rpoC1 coding regions. Several loci showed equivalent performance and combinations of them did not greatly increase their discrimination capacity. In addition, phylogenies generated from each of the separate regions and multi-locus combinations by using best-fit and Kimura 2-parameter models were compared, but no significant difference was found.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available