MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532985183 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0209

Barcode-based species delimitation in the marine realm: a test using Hexanauplia (Multicrustacea: Thecostraca and Copepoda)

2016· article· en· W2532985183 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Robert G. Young, Cathryn L. Abbott, Thomas W. Therriault, Sarah J. Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiologyEvolutionary biologyIntraspecific competitionCytochrome c oxidase subunit IEcologyPhylogenetic treeZoologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA barcoding has been used successfully for identifying specimens belonging to marine planktonic groups. However, the ability to delineate species within taxonomically diverse and widely distributed marine groups, such as the Copepoda and Thecostraca, remains largely untested. We investigate whether a cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI-5P) global pairwise sequence divergence threshold exists between intraspecific and interspecific divergences in the copepods plus the thecostracans (barnacles and allies). Using publicly accessible sequence data, we applied a graphical method to determine an optimal threshold value. With these thresholds, and using a newly generated planktonic marine data set, we quantify the degree of concordance using a bidirectional analysis and discuss different analytical methods for sequence-based species delimitation (e.g., BIN, ABGD, jMOTU, UPARSE, Mothur, PTP, and GMYC). Our results support a COI-5P threshold between 2.1% and 2.6% p-distance across methods for these crustacean taxa, yielding molecular groupings largely concordant with traditional, morphologically defined species. The adoption of internal methods for clustering verification enables rapid biodiversity studies and the exploration of unknown faunas using DNA barcoding. The approaches taken here for concordance assessment also provide a more quantitative comparison of clustering results (as contrasted with "success/failure" of barcoding), and we recommend their further consideration for barcoding studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207