4.5 Article

Determining threshold values for barcoding fungi: lessons from Cortinarius (Basidiomycota), a highly diverse and widespread ectomycorrhizal genus

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiw045

关键词

barcoding gap; Cortinarius; DNA barcoding; internal transcribed spacer (ITS); molecular operational taxonomic unit (MOTU); species identification; threshold approaches

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [OB 24/27-1, OB 24/27-2]
  2. D. E. Stuntz Memorial Foundation
  3. Puget Sound Mycological Society
  4. Academy of Finland [129052]
  5. Ministry of Environment, Finland [YM38 / 5512 / 2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different distance-based threshold selection approaches were used to assess and compare use of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region to distinguish among 901 Cortinarius species represented by >3000 collections. Sources of error associated with genetic markers and selection approaches were explored and evaluated using MOTUs from genus and lineage based-alignments. Our study indicates that 1%-2% more species can be distinguished by using the full-length ITS barcode as compared to either the ITS1 or ITS2 regions alone. Optimal threshold values for different picking approaches and genetic marker lengths inferred from a subset of species containing major lineages ranged from 97.0% to 99.5% sequence similarity using clustering optimization and UNITE SH, and from 1% to 2% sequence dissimilarity with CROP. Errors for the optimal cutoff ranged from 0% to 70%, and these can be reduced to a maximum of 22% when excluding species lacking a barcode gap. A threshold value of 99% is suitable for distinguishing species in the majority of lineages in the genus using the entire ITS region but only 90% of the species could be identified using just the ITS1 or ITS2 region. Prior identification of species, lacking barcode gaps and their subsequent separate analyses, maximized the accuracy of threshold approaches.

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

4.5
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