4.7 Article

The utility of mtDNA and rDNA for barcoding and phylogeny of plant-parasitic nematodes from Longidoridae (Nematoda, Enoplea)

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11085-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. 'Consejeria de Economia, Innovacion y Ciencia' of the Junta de Andalucia [P12-AGR 1486, AGR-136]
  2. Union Europea, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo regional, 'Una manera de hacer Europa'
  3. Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) [201740E042]
  4. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) [219262]
  5. 'Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad' of Spain [AGL-2012-37521]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The traditional identification of plant-parasitic nematode species by morphology and morphometric studies is very difficult because of high morphological variability that can lead to considerable overlap of many characteristics and their ambiguous interpretation. For this reason, it is essential to implement approaches to ensure accurate species identification. DNA barcoding aids in identification and advances species discovery. This study sought to unravel the use of the mitochondrial marker cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (coxI) as barcode for Longidoridae species identification, and as a phylogenetic marker. The results showed that mitochondrial and ribosomal markers could be used as barcoding markers, except for some species from the Xiphinema americanum group. The ITS1 region showed a promising role in barcoding for species identification because of the clear molecular variability among species. Some species presented important molecular variability in coxI. The analysis of the newly provided sequences and the sequences deposited in GenBank showed plausible misidentifications, and the use of voucher species and topotype specimens is a priority for this group of nematodes. The use of coxI and D2 and D3 expansion segments of the 28S rRNA gene did not clarify the phylogeny at the genus level.

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

4.7
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