MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802909570 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00030

Detection of Potential Problematic Cytb Gene Sequences of Fishes in GenBank

2018· article· en· W2802909570 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaobing Li, Xuejuan Shen, Xiao Chen, Dan Xiang, Robert W. Murphy, Yongyi Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesChina Agricultural UniversitySouth China Agricultural UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGenBankIntraspecific competitionDNA barcodingBiologyIntrogressionEvolutionary biologyInterspecific competitionIdentification (biology)Mitochondrial DNAZoologyGeneGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fishes are, by far, the most diverse group of vertebrates. Their classification relies heavily on morphology. In practice, the correct morphological identification of species often depends on personal experience because many species vary in their body shape, color and other external characters. Thus, the identification of a species may be prone to errors. Due to the rapid development of molecular biology, the number of sequences of fishes deposited in GenBank has grown explosively. These published data likely contain errors owing to invalid or incorrectly identified species. The erroneous data can lead to downstream problems. Thus, it is critical that such errors get identified and corrected. A strategy based on DNA barcoding can detect potentially erroneous data, especially when intraspecific K2P variation exceeds interspecific K2P divergence. Analyses of the most used DNA marker for fishes (mitochondrial Cytb) discovers that intraspecific differences of fishes are generally less than 1%, while interspecific differences are generally higher than 10%. Based on this ruler, our analyses identify 1,303 potential problematic Cytb sequences of fishes in GenBank and point to taxonomic problems, errors in identification, genetic introgression and other concerns. Care must be taken to avoid the perpetuation of errors when using these available data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207