4.4 Article

Prospects of using DNA barcoding for species identification and evaluation of the accuracy of sequence databases for ticks (Acari: Ixodida)

期刊

TICKS AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 352-358

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.01.001

关键词

Tick; Ixodida; DNA barcoding; COI; ABGD

资金

  1. Inner Mongolia autonomous region higher school science and technology research projects [NJSY13053]
  2. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [31301904]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ticks are important vectors of disease and parasites of livestock. Species identification of ticks has been traditionally based on morphological characters, which is usually limited by the condition of samples and little variation among specimens, so a rapid and reliable identification method is needed. DNA barcoding uses a standard fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase c subunit I (COI) to identify species and has been successfully used in many taxa. In this study, we applied DNA barcoding to tick species. K2P distances showed that most interspecific divergences exceed 8%, while intraspecific distances were usually lower than 2%. However, intraspecific distances of 12 species were unexpectedly high. ABGD grouping results demonstrated that sequences of these species should be divided into 2 or more groups. And some exceptional clustering occurred among sequences of Hyalomma marginatum, Hy. truncatum, and Hy. dromedarii, Amblyomma testudinarium and A. pattoni, Rhipicephalus sanguineus and R. pumilio, Haemaphysalis parva and Ha. concinna, Ixodes asanumai and I. nipponensis. Additionally, 226 unnamed sequences were assigned to known species or constituted different groups, and K2P distances of all these groups were less than 2%. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that DNA barcoding is a useful tool for the identification of tick species, and further work is needed to reveal ambiguous species delimitation in some problematic genera. (C) 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据