The importance of DNA barcode choice in biogeographic analyses — a case study on marine midges of the genus <i>Clunio</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA barcodes are widely used for species identification and biogeographic studies. Here, we compare the use of full mitochondrial genomes versus DNA barcodes and other mitochondrial DNA fragments for biogeographic and ecological analyses. Our dataset comprised 120 mitochondrial genomes from the genus Clunio (Diptera: Chironomidae), comprising five populations from two closely related species (Clunio marinus and Clunio balticus) and three ecotypes. We extracted cytochrome oxidase c subunit I (COI) barcodes and partitioned the mitochondrial genomes into non-overlapping windows of 750 or 1500 bp. Haplotype networks and diversity indices were compared for these windows and full mitochondrial genomes (15.4 kb). Full mitochondrial genomes indicate complete geographic isolation between populations, but do not allow for conclusions on the separation of ecotypes or species. COI barcodes have comparatively few polymorphisms, ideal for species identification, but do not resolve geographic isolation. Many of the similarly sized 750 bp windows have higher nucleotide and haplotype diversity than COI barcodes, but still do not resolve biogeography. Only when increasing the window size to 1500 bp, two windows resolve biogeography reasonably well. Our results suggest that the design and use of DNA barcodes in biogeographic studies must be carefully evaluated for each investigated species.
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".