Plant DNA barcoding necessitates marker-specific efforts to establish more comprehensive reference databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of low species-level identification rates in plants by DNA barcoding is exacerbated by the fact that reference databases are far from being comprehensive. We investigate the impact of increased sampling depth on identification success by analyzing the efficacy of established plant barcode marker sequences (rbcL, matK, trnL-trnF, psbA-trnH, ITS). Adding sequences of the same species to the reference database led to an increase in correct species assignment of +10.9% for rbcL and +19.0% for ITS. Simultaneously, erroneous identification dropped from ∼40% to ∼12.5%. Despite its evolutionary constraints, ITS showed the highest identification rate and identification gain by increased sampling effort, which makes it a very suitable marker in the planning phase of a barcode study. The limited sequence availability of trnL-trnF is problematic for an otherwise very promising plastid plant barcoding marker. Future developments in machine learning algorithms have the potential to give new impetus to plant barcoding, but are dependent on extensive reference databases. We expect that our results will be incorporated into future plans for the development of DNA barcoding reference databases and will lead to these being developed with greater depth and taxonomic coverage.
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 | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".