Comparing COI and ITS as DNA Barcode Markers for Mushrooms and Allies (Agaricomycotina)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA barcoding is an approach to rapidly identify species using short, standard genetic markers. The mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI) has been proposed as the universal barcode locus, but its utility for barcoding in mushrooms (ca. 20,000 species) has not been established. We succeeded in generating 167 partial COI sequences (~450 bp) representing ~100 morphospecies from ~650 collections of Agaricomycotina using several sets of new primers. Large introns (~1500 bp) at variable locations were detected in ~5% of the sequences we obtained. We suspect that widespread presence of large introns is responsible for our low PCR success (~30%) with this locus. We also sequenced the nuclear internal transcribed spacer rDNA regions (ITS) to compare with COI. Among the small proportion of taxa for which COI could be sequenced, COI and ITS perform similarly as a barcode. However, in a densely sampled set of closely related taxa, COI was less divergent than ITS and failed to distinguish all terminal clades. Given our results and the wealth of ITS data already available in public databases, we recommend that COI be abandoned in favor of ITS as the primary DNA barcode locus in mushrooms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".