DNA barcodes from four loci provide poor resolution of taxonomic groups in the genus Crataegus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA barcodes can facilitate identification of organisms especially when morphological characters are limited or unobservable. To what extent this potential is realized in specific groups of plants remains to be determined. Libraries of barcode sequences from well-studied authoritatively identified plants represented by herbarium voucher specimens are needed in order for DNA barcodes to serve their intended purpose, where this is possible, and to understand the reasons behind their failure to do so, when this occurs. We evaluated four loci, widely regarded as universal DNA barcodes for plants, for their utility in hawthorn species identification. Three plastid regions, matK, rbcLa and psbA-trnH, and the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) of nuclear ribosomal DNA discriminate only some of the species of Crataegus that can be recognized on the basis of their morphology etc. This is, in part, because in Rosaceae tribe Maleae most individual plastid loci yield relatively little taxonomic resolution and, in part, because the effects of allopolyploidization have not been eliminated by concerted evolution of the ITS regions. Although individual plastid markers provided generally poor resolution of taxonomic groups in Crataegus, a few species were notable exceptions. In contrast, analyses of concatenated sequences of the 3 plastid barcode loci plus 11 additional plastid loci gave a well-resolved maternal phylogeny. In the ITS2 tree, different individuals of some species formed groups with taxonomically unrelated species. This is a sign of lineage sorting due to incomplete concerted evolution in ITS2. Incongruence between the ITS2 and plastid trees is best explained by hybridization between different lineages within the genus. In aggregate, limited between-species variation in plastid loci, hybridization and a lack of concerted evolution in ITS2 all combine to limit the utility of standard barcoding markers in Crataegus. These results have implications for authentication of hawthorn materials in natural health products.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".