PCR cycles above routine numbers do not compromise high-throughput DNA barcoding results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput DNA barcoding has become essential in ecology and evolution, but some technical questions still remain. Increasing the number of PCR cycles above the routine 20-30 cycles is a common practice when working with old-type specimens, which provide little amounts of DNA, or when facing annealing issues with the primers. However, increasing the number of cycles can raise the number of artificial mutations due to polymerase errors. In this work, we sequenced 20 COI libraries in the Illumina MiSeq platform. Libraries were prepared with 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 PCR cycles from four individuals belonging to four species of four genera of cephalopods. We found no relationship between the number of PCR cycles and the number of mutations despite using a nonproofreading polymerase. Moreover, even when using a high number of PCR cycles, the resulting number of mutations was low enough not to be an issue in the context of high-throughput DNA barcoding (but may still remain an issue in DNA metabarcoding due to chimera formation). We conclude that the common practice of increasing the number of PCR cycles should not negatively impact the outcome of a high-throughput DNA barcoding study in terms of the occurrence of point mutations.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".