MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023917218 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036514

Wolbachia and DNA Barcoding Insects: Patterns, Potential, and Problems

2012· article· en· W2023917218 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Alex Smith, Claudia Bertrand, Kate Crosby, Eldon S. Eveleigh, José Fernández-Triana, Brian L. Fisher, Jason Gibbs, Mehrdad Hajibabaei, Winnie Hallwachs, Katharine R. Hind, Jan Hrček, Da-Wei Huang, Milan Janda, Daniel H. Janzen, Yanwei Li, Scott E. Miller, Laurence Packer, Donаld L. J. Quicke, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Josephine Rodriguez, Rodolphe Rougerie, Mark Shaw, Cory S. Sheffield, Julie K. Stahlhut, Dirk Steinke, James B. Whitfield, Monty Wood, Xin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickDalhousie UniversityCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaYork UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Resources CanadaOntario Genomics InstituteGuanacaste Dry Forest Conservation FundOntario GenomicsDivision of Environmental BiologyForest Conservation FundWege FoundationGenome CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan FoundationU.S. Department of AgricultureGovernment of CanadaInternational Conservation Fund of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWolbachiaBiologyDNA barcodingMultilocus sequence typingBarcodeMitochondrial DNADNA sequencingEvolutionary biologyGeneticsgenomic DNADNAHost (biology)Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wolbachia is a genus of bacterial endosymbionts that impacts the breeding systems of their hosts. Wolbachia can confuse the patterns of mitochondrial variation, including DNA barcodes, because it influences the pathways through which mitochondria are inherited. We examined the extent to which these endosymbionts are detected in routine DNA barcoding, assessed their impact upon the insect sequence divergence and identification accuracy, and considered the variation present in Wolbachia COI. Using both standard PCR assays (Wolbachia surface coding protein--wsp), and bacterial COI fragments we found evidence of Wolbachia in insect total genomic extracts created for DNA barcoding library construction. When >2 million insect COI trace files were examined on the Barcode of Life Datasystem (BOLD) Wolbachia COI was present in 0.16% of the cases. It is possible to generate Wolbachia COI using standard insect primers; however, that amplicon was never confused with the COI of the host. Wolbachia alleles recovered were predominantly Supergroup A and were broadly distributed geographically and phylogenetically. We conclude that the presence of the Wolbachia DNA in total genomic extracts made from insects is unlikely to compromise the accuracy of the DNA barcode library; in fact, the ability to query this DNA library (the database and the extracts) for endosymbionts is one of the ancillary benefits of such a large scale endeavor--which we provide several examples. It is our conclusion that regular assays for Wolbachia presence and type can, and should, be adopted by large scale insect barcoding initiatives. While COI is one of the five multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) genes used for categorizing Wolbachia, there is limited overlap with the eukaryotic DNA barcode region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207