DNA barcode variability and host plant usage of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to examine the genetic variation in fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and to test the efficiency of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcoding region for species-level identification. Twelve fruit fly species were collected from 24 host plant species of 13 families. The number of host plant species for each fruit fly species ranged between 1 and 11, with Bactrocera correcta found in the most diverse host plants. A total of 123 COI sequences were obtained from these fruit fly species. Sequences from the NCBI database were also included, for a total of 17 species analyzed. DNA barcoding identification analysis based on the best close match method revealed a good performance, with 94.4% of specimens correctly identified. However, many specimens (3.6%) had ambiguous identification, mostly due to intra- and interspecific overlap between members of the B. dorsalis complex. A phylogenetic tree based on the mitochondrial barcode sequences indicated that all species, except for the members of the B. dorsalis complex, were monophyletic with strong support. Our work supports recent calls for synonymization of these species. Divergent lineages were observed within B. correcta and B. tuberculata, and this suggested that these species need further taxonomic reexamination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".