| Literature DB >> 15817134 |
Mark J Gibbs1, John S Armstrong, Adrian J Gibbs.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most current DNA diagnostic tests for identifying organisms use specific oligonucleotide probes that are complementary in sequence to, and hence only hybridize with the DNA of one target species. By contrast, in traditional taxonomy, specimens are usually identified by 'dichotomous keys' that use combinations of characters shared by different members of the target set. Using one specific character for each target is the least efficient strategy for identification. Using combinations of shared bisectionally-distributed characters is much more efficient, and this strategy is most efficient when they separate the targets in a progressively binary way.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2005 PMID: 15817134 PMCID: PMC1090557 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-90
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1The percentage of DSSs of different lengths in the CO1 sequences, and in random sequences of the same length and composition.
Figure 2DSS occupancy; the number (log10) of DSSs of different lengths shared by different percentages of the test sequences in: A) the CO1-animal sequences; B) the CO1-moth sequences
A minimum complete (MC) set of DSSs that distinguish 201 CO1-moth sequences; the DSSs 18 nts long have predicted Tms in the range 37°–47°C and no consecutive 'runs' of more than three residues of the same nucleotide.
| DSS | sequence |
| 1 | -ATAAAGGTATTTGATCAA- |
| 2 | -ATCCTCCAATTATAATAG- |
| 3 | -TCAAGAAGAATTGTAGAA- |
| 4 | -CTAATTCAGCTCGAATTA- |
| 5 | -TCATCTCCAATTAAAGAT- |
| 6 | -AAATTAATAGCTCCTAAA- |
| 7 | -GGAGGATTTGGAAATTGA- |
| 8 | -ATAAATTTGATCATCTCC- |
| 9 | -TCGAAATTTAAATACATC- |
| 10 | -GCAGGAACAGGATGAACA- |
| 11 | -TTTAGCTGGAGCTATTAC- |
| 12 | -AACAGATCGAAATTTAAA- |
| 13 | -ATTCGAGCAGAATTAGGA- |
| 14 | -AATTCTGCTCGAATTAGT- |
| 15 | -AAATGCAGTAATCCCTAC- |
| 16 | -AGAAGTATTTAAATTACG- |
Species representing various superfamilies of moths, together with the Accession Codes of their CO1 gene sequences and their 'DSS signatures', namely the presence/absence of the sub-sequences listed in Table 1 in the selected region of their CO1 gene sequences.
| Species | Superfamily | Accession Code | DSS signature |
| Geometroidea | AF549628 | 1010110110110000 | |
| Geometroidea | AF549636 | 0001000000000000 | |
| Geometroidea | AF549637 | 1010000011001000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549609 | 1010000111011000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549731 | 1000000001001000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549743 | 0100010000000000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549761 | 1101000001010000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549703 | 0111110011000000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549725 | 0111100111000000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549715 | 0111000000000000 | |
| Noctuoidea | AF549780 | 1100001101100001 | |
| Sphingiodea | AF549807 | 1100010110011000 | |
| Sphingiodea | AF549797 | 0010100100100000 | |
| Sphingiodea | AF549804 | 1100101010001000 |
Figure 3The minimum number of DSSs of different lengths that distinguish all sequences in each of the three CO1 datasets and in datasets of random sequences of the same length, number and average base composition.
Figure 4The cumulative and relative percentages of pairs of (A) the CO1-animal sequences and (B) the CO1-moth sequences, distinguished by successively selected DSSs. The 'relative efficiency' of each DSS is the number of pairs it distinguishes as a percentage of the pairs remaining to be distinguished.