LSU rDNA D5 region: the DNA barcode for molecular classification and identification of <i>Demodex</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether ribosomal genes can be used as DNA barcodes for molecular identification of Demodex (Acariformes: Demodicidae) is unclear. To examine this, Demodex folliculorum, D. brevis, D. canis, and D. caprae were collected for DNA extraction, rDNA fragments amplification, sequencing, and analysis. The V2 and V4 regions of SSU rDNA; D5, D6, and D8 regions of LSU rDNA; and ITS region were obtained from the four morphospecies. BLAST analysis showed that the obtained sequences matched those of Demodex or Aplonobia (Acariformes: Tetranychidae) in Raphignathae. Phylogenetic trees derived from V2, V4, D5, D6, and D8 regions, but not from ITS region, showed that the four species of Demodex clustered independently. Sequence divergence analysis further demonstrated that D5, D6, and D8 regions had obvious barcoding gap between intraspecific and interspecific divergences, with the gap of D5 (16.91%) larger than that of D6 (11.82%) and D8 (4.66%). The V2 and V4 regions did not have a barcoding gap, as the intraspecific and interspecific divergences partially overlapped. For the ITS region, intraspecific and interspecific divergences completely overlapped. These results suggest that the D5, D6, and D8 regions of LSU rDNA, especially D5, are suitable DNA barcodes for Demodex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".