Cargando…

Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)

BACKGROUND: The 5’ region of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) is the standard marker for DNA barcoding. However, COI has proved to be of limited use in identifying some species, and for some taxa, the coding sequence is not efficiently amplified by PCR. These deficiencies lead to uncertainty as to whether...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lv, Jizhou, Wu, Shaoqiang, Zhang, Yongning, Chen, Yan, Feng, Chunyan, Yuan, Xiangfen, Jia, Guangle, Deng, Junhua, Wang, Caixia, Wang, Qin, Mei, Lin, Lin, Xiangmei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24589289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93
_version_ 1782306594008072192
author Lv, Jizhou
Wu, Shaoqiang
Zhang, Yongning
Chen, Yan
Feng, Chunyan
Yuan, Xiangfen
Jia, Guangle
Deng, Junhua
Wang, Caixia
Wang, Qin
Mei, Lin
Lin, Xiangmei
author_facet Lv, Jizhou
Wu, Shaoqiang
Zhang, Yongning
Chen, Yan
Feng, Chunyan
Yuan, Xiangfen
Jia, Guangle
Deng, Junhua
Wang, Caixia
Wang, Qin
Mei, Lin
Lin, Xiangmei
author_sort Lv, Jizhou
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 5’ region of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) is the standard marker for DNA barcoding. However, COI has proved to be of limited use in identifying some species, and for some taxa, the coding sequence is not efficiently amplified by PCR. These deficiencies lead to uncertainty as to whether COI is the most suitable barcoding fragment for species identification of ticks. METHODS: In this study, we directly compared the relative effectiveness of COI, 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA), nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) and 12S rDNA for tick species identification. A total of 307 sequences from 84 specimens representing eight tick species were acquired by PCR. Besides the 1,834 published sequences of 189 tick species from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Database, 430 unpublished sequences representing 59 tick species were also successfully screened by Bayesian analyses. Thereafter, the performance of the four DNA markers to identify tick species was evaluated by identification success rates given by these markers using nearest neighbour (NN), BLASTn, liberal tree-based or liberal tree-based (+threshold) methods. RESULTS: Genetic divergence analyses showed that the intra-specific divergence of each marker was much lower than the inter-specific divergence. Our results indicated that the rates of correct sequence identification for all four markers (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) were very high (> 96%) when using the NN methodology. We also found that COI was not significantly better than the other markers in terms of its rate of correct sequence identification. Overall, BLASTn and NN methods produced higher rates of correct species identification than that produced by the liberal tree-based methods (+threshold or otherwise). CONCLUSIONS: As the standard DNA barcode, COI should be the first choice for tick species identification, while 16S rDNA, ITS2, and 12S rDNA could be used when COI does not produce reliable results. Besides, NN and BLASTn are efficient methods for species identification of ticks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3945964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39459642014-03-09 Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida) Lv, Jizhou Wu, Shaoqiang Zhang, Yongning Chen, Yan Feng, Chunyan Yuan, Xiangfen Jia, Guangle Deng, Junhua Wang, Caixia Wang, Qin Mei, Lin Lin, Xiangmei Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: The 5’ region of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) is the standard marker for DNA barcoding. However, COI has proved to be of limited use in identifying some species, and for some taxa, the coding sequence is not efficiently amplified by PCR. These deficiencies lead to uncertainty as to whether COI is the most suitable barcoding fragment for species identification of ticks. METHODS: In this study, we directly compared the relative effectiveness of COI, 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA), nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) and 12S rDNA for tick species identification. A total of 307 sequences from 84 specimens representing eight tick species were acquired by PCR. Besides the 1,834 published sequences of 189 tick species from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Database, 430 unpublished sequences representing 59 tick species were also successfully screened by Bayesian analyses. Thereafter, the performance of the four DNA markers to identify tick species was evaluated by identification success rates given by these markers using nearest neighbour (NN), BLASTn, liberal tree-based or liberal tree-based (+threshold) methods. RESULTS: Genetic divergence analyses showed that the intra-specific divergence of each marker was much lower than the inter-specific divergence. Our results indicated that the rates of correct sequence identification for all four markers (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) were very high (> 96%) when using the NN methodology. We also found that COI was not significantly better than the other markers in terms of its rate of correct sequence identification. Overall, BLASTn and NN methods produced higher rates of correct species identification than that produced by the liberal tree-based methods (+threshold or otherwise). CONCLUSIONS: As the standard DNA barcode, COI should be the first choice for tick species identification, while 16S rDNA, ITS2, and 12S rDNA could be used when COI does not produce reliable results. Besides, NN and BLASTn are efficient methods for species identification of ticks. BioMed Central 2014-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3945964/ /pubmed/24589289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93 Text en Copyright © 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Lv, Jizhou
Wu, Shaoqiang
Zhang, Yongning
Chen, Yan
Feng, Chunyan
Yuan, Xiangfen
Jia, Guangle
Deng, Junhua
Wang, Caixia
Wang, Qin
Mei, Lin
Lin, Xiangmei
Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title_full Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title_fullStr Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title_short Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida)
title_sort assessment of four dna fragments (coi, 16s rdna, its2, 12s rdna) for species identification of the ixodida (acari: ixodida)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24589289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93
work_keys_str_mv AT lvjizhou assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT wushaoqiang assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT zhangyongning assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT chenyan assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT fengchunyan assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT yuanxiangfen assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT jiaguangle assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT dengjunhua assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT wangcaixia assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT wangqin assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT meilin assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida
AT linxiangmei assessmentoffourdnafragmentscoi16srdnaits212srdnaforspeciesidentificationoftheixodidaacariixodida