COI is better than 16S rRNA for DNA barcoding Asiatic salamanders (Amphibia: Caudata: Hynobiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 5' region of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) gene cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) is the standard marker for DNA barcoding. However, because COI tends to be highly variable in amphibians, sequencing is often challenging. Consequently, another mtDNA gene, 16S rRNA gene, is often advocated for amphibian barcoding. Herein, we directly compare the usefulness of COI and 16S in discriminating species of hynobiid salamanders using 130 individuals. Species identification and classification of these animals, which are endemic to Asia, are often based on morphology only. Analysis of Kimura 2-parameter genetic distances (K2P) documents the mean intraspecific variation for COI and 16S rRNA genes to be 1.4% and 0.3%, respectively. Whereas COI can always identify species, sometimes 16S cannot. Intra- and interspecific genetic divergences occasionally overlap in both markers, thus reducing the value of a barcoding gap to identify genera. Regardless, COI is the better DNA barcoding marker for hynobiids. In addition to the comparison of two potential markers, high levels of intraspecific divergence in COI (>5%) suggest that both Onychodactylus fischeri and Salamandrella keyserlingii might be composites of cryptic species.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".