Deciduous Trees and the Application of Universal DNA Barcodes: A Case Study on the Circumpolar Fraxinus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of DNA barcoding for identifying representative specimens of the circumpolar tree genus Fraxinus (56 species) was investigated. We examined the genetic variability of several loci suggested in chloroplast DNA barcode protocols such as matK, rpoB, rpoC1 and trnH-psbA in a large worldwide sample of Fraxinus species. The chloroplast intergenic spacer rpl32-trnL was further assessed in search for a potentially variable and useful locus. The results of the study suggest that the proposed cpDNA loci, alone or in combination, cannot fully discriminate among species because of the generally low rates of substitution in the chloroplast genome of Fraxinus. The intergenic spacer trnH-psbA was the best performing locus, but genetic distance-based discrimination was moderately successful and only resulted in the separation of the samples at the subgenus level. Use of the BLAST approach was better than the neighbor-joining tree reconstruction method with pairwise Kimura's two-parameter rates of substitution, but allowed for the correct identification of only less than half of the species sampled. Such rates are substantially lower than the success rate required for a standardised barcoding approach. Consequently, the current cpDNA barcodes are inadequate to fully discriminate Fraxinus species. Given that a low rate of substitution is common among the plastid genomes of trees, the use of the plant cpDNA "universal" barcode may not be suitable for the safe identification of tree species below a generic or sectional level. Supplementary barcoding loci of the nuclear genome and alternative solutions are proposed and discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".