| Literature DB >> 24453558 |
Angeliki Laiou1, Luca Aconiti Mandolini1, Roberta Piredda1, Rosanna Bellarosa1, Marco Cosimo Simeone1.
Abstract
Since the pre-historic era, humans have been using forests as a food, drugs and handcraft reservoir. Today, the use of botanical raw material to produce pharmaceuticals, herbal remedies, teas, spirits, cosmetics, sweets, dietary supplements, special industrial compounds and crude materials constitute an important global resource in terms of healthcare and economy. In recent years, DNA barcoding has been suggested as a useful molecular technique to complement traditional taxonomic expertise for fast species identification and biodiversity inventories. In this study, in situ application of DNA barcodes was tested on a selected group of forest tree species with the aim of contributing to the identification, conservation and trade control of these valuable plant resources. The "core barcode" for land plants (rbcL, matK, and trnH-psbA) was tested on 68 tree specimens (24 taxa). Universality of the method, ease of data retrieval and correct species assignment using sequence character states, presence of DNA barcoding gaps and GenBank discrimination assessment were evaluated. The markers showed different prospects of reliable applicability. RbcL and trnH-psbA displayed 100% amplification and sequencing success, while matK did not amplify in some plant groups. The majority of species had a single haplotype. The trnH-psbA region showed the highest genetic variability, but in most cases the high intraspecific sequence divergence revealed the absence of a clear DNA barcoding gap. We also faced an important limitation because the taxonomic coverage of the public reference database is incomplete. Overall, species identification success was 66.7%. This work illustrates current limitations in the applicability of DNA barcoding to taxonomic forest surveys. These difficulties urge for an improvement of technical protocols and an increase of the number of sequences and taxa in public databases.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; DNA barcoding; Forest Biodiversity; Medicinal and Aromatic plants
Year: 2013 PMID: 24453558 PMCID: PMC3890678 DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.365.5670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Zookeys ISSN: 1313-2970 Impact factor: 1.546
Sample list.
| Familia | Species | Relevance | No. of samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ornamental/afforestation | 3 | ||
| Ornamental/afforestation | 3 | ||
| Ornamental/afforestation/conservation | 3 | ||
| Medicinal/ornamental | 3 | ||
| Medicinal/ornamental | 2 | ||
| Food industry/conservation | 4 | ||
| / | 3 | ||
| Ornamental/conservation | 2 | ||
| Medicinal/food industry | 3 | ||
| Valuable wood industry | 3 | ||
| Medicinal/ornamental | 3 | ||
| / | 3 | ||
| Medicinal/food industry | 5 | ||
| / | 3 | ||
| / | 2 | ||
| Medicinal | 5 | ||
| / | 2 | ||
| / | 1 | ||
| Medicinal/ornamental | 2 | ||
| Food industry | 1 | ||
| Medicinal/food industry/ornamental | 4 | ||
| Medicinal/food industry | 3 | ||
| Medicinal/ornamental/conservation | 4 | ||
| / | 1 |
Primers list.
| Marker region | Primers | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Fw - ATGTCACCACAAACAGAAAC | Kress et al. (2005) | |
| Rev - TCGCATGTACCTGCAGTAGC | ||
| Fw - CGCGCATGGTGGATTCACAATCC | Shaw et al. (2007) | |
| Rev - GTTATGCATGAACGTAATGCTC | ||
| Fw - CGTACAGTACTTTTGTGTTTACGAG | Kim (unpublished) | |
| Rev - ACCCAGTCCATCTAAATCTTGGTTC | ||
| Fw - GAACTCGTCGGATGGAGTG | ||
| Rev - TAAACGATCCTCTCATTCACGA |
Haplotypes generated by BLASTClust in the investigated dataset with both markers and their combination. Shaded: species where unique haplotypes (either single or in combination) were detected.
| Species | Samples | Unique haplotypes | Inter-species shared haplotypes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| trnH-psbA | Combined | trnH-psbA | Combined | ||||
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | / | / | / | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | / | / | / | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | / | / | / | |
| 3 | / | / | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 4 | / | 2 | 2 | 1 | / | / | |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | / | / | / | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | / | / | / | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | / | / | / | |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | / | / | / | |
| 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | / | / | |
| 3 | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | / | / | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | / | / | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | / | / | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | / | / | / | |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | / | / | / | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | / | / | / | |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 4 | / | / | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1 | / | / | / | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Values of maximum inter- and minimum intraspecific uncorrected p-genetic distances resulting from the combination of rbcL + trnH-psbA sequences, and relative barcoding gaps calculated in 24 forest tree taxa; n.d. = not determined; * = no sister species included in the dataset; ** = taxa with single accession. Shaded: species where a barcoding gap was detected.
| Samples | Max. Intrasp. distance | Min Intersp. distance | Barcoding gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.0015 | 0.0015 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0.0015 | 0.0015 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | |
| 3 | 0.002898554 | 0.000950571 | -0.0019 | |
| 2 | 0.0058 | 0 | -0.0058 | |
| 3 | 0.0009 | 0 | -0.0009 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | |
| 3 | 0.0009 | 0 | -0.0009 | |
| 2 | 0.0019 | 0 | -0.0019 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0.0064 | 0.0064 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0.0064 | 0.0064 | |
| 5 | 0.00568 | 0.00284 | -0.0028 | |
| 3 | 0.0036 | 0 | -0.0036 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 0.0017 | 0 | -0.0017 | |
| 2 | 0.0101 | 0 | -0.0101 | |
| 1 | n.d. | 0.0142 | n.d. | |
| 2 | 0.02397 | 0.01588 | -0.0081 | |
| 1 | n.d. | 0.0158 | n.d. | |
| 4 | 0 | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 3 | 0 | n.d. | n.d. | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | n.d. | 0 | n.d. |
Summary of the species identification success achieved with rbcL + trnH-psbA and the three discrimination methods in the present study: occurrence of unique haplotypes in the total species set, genetic distances among and within congeneric species, correct species match in the GenBank database. Green: correct identification; red: non confident/wrong identification; shaded = not determined (no intra- or interspecific samples investigated); a = species absent in GenBank with either one or both markers.
| Species | Identification success | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Haplotype specificity | Min. inter- > max. intraspecific distance | GenBank correct match | |
| - | |||
| - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | |
| - | |||
| - | - | ||
| - | - | - | |
| - | - | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | |
| - | |||
| - | - | ||
| n.d. | |||
| - | |||
| n.d. | |||
| n.d. | |||
| n.d. | |||
| - | - | ||
| - | n.d. | - | |