↓ Skip to main content

Two New Computational Methods for Universal DNA Barcoding: A Benchmark Using Barcode Sequences of Bacteria, Archaea, Animals, Fungi, and Land Plants

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Two New Computational Methods for Universal DNA Barcoding: A Benchmark Using Barcode Sequences of Bacteria, Archaea, Animals, Fungi, and Land Plants
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0076910
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akifumi S. Tanabe, Hirokazu Toju

Abstract

Taxonomic identification of biological specimens based on DNA sequence information (a.k.a. DNA barcoding) is becoming increasingly common in biodiversity science. Although several methods have been proposed, many of them are not universally applicable due to the need for prerequisite phylogenetic/machine-learning analyses, the need for huge computational resources, or the lack of a firm theoretical background. Here, we propose two new computational methods of DNA barcoding and show a benchmark for bacterial/archeal 16S, animal COX1, fungal internal transcribed spacer, and three plant chloroplast (rbcL, matK, and trnH-psbA) barcode loci that can be used to compare the performance of existing and new methods. The benchmark was performed under two alternative situations: query sequences were available in the corresponding reference sequence databases in one, but were not available in the other. In the former situation, the commonly used "1-nearest-neighbor" (1-NN) method, which assigns the taxonomic information of the most similar sequences in a reference database (i.e., BLAST-top-hit reference sequence) to a query, displays the highest rate and highest precision of successful taxonomic identification. However, in the latter situation, the 1-NN method produced extremely high rates of misidentification for all the barcode loci examined. In contrast, one of our new methods, the query-centric auto-k-nearest-neighbor (QCauto) method, consistently produced low rates of misidentification for all the loci examined in both situations. These results indicate that the 1-NN method is most suitable if the reference sequences of all potentially observable species are available in databases; otherwise, the QCauto method returns the most reliable identification results. The benchmark results also indicated that the taxon coverage of reference sequences is far from complete for genus or species level identification in all the barcode loci examined. Therefore, we need to accelerate the registration of reference barcode sequences to apply high-throughput DNA barcoding to genus or species level identification in biodiversity research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 257 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 56 21%
Student > Master 41 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 4%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 49 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 125 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 11%
Environmental Science 24 9%
Unspecified 6 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 21 8%
Unknown 57 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,063,208
of 23,106,390 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#84,403
of 197,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,827
of 212,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,907
of 5,186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,106,390 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.