| Literature DB >> 25837628 |
Giovanna Câmara Giudicelli1, Geraldo Mäder2, Loreta Brandão de Freitas3.
Abstract
DNA barcoding is a technique for discriminating and identifying species using short, variable, and standardized DNA regions. Here, we tested for the first time the performance of plastid and nuclear regions as DNA barcodes in Passiflora. This genus is a largely variable, with more than 900 species of high ecological, commercial, and ornamental importance. We analyzed 1034 accessions of 222 species representing the four subgenera of Passiflora and evaluated the effectiveness of five plastid regions and three nuclear datasets currently employed as DNA barcodes in plants using barcoding gap, applied similarity-, and tree-based methods. The plastid regions were able to identify less than 45% of species, whereas the nuclear datasets were efficient for more than 50% using "best match" and "best close match" methods of TaxonDNA software. All subgenera presented higher interspecific pairwise distances and did not fully overlap with the intraspecific distance, and similarity-based methods showed better results than tree-based methods. The nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) region presented a higher discrimination power than the other datasets and also showed other desirable characteristics as a DNA barcode for this genus. Therefore, we suggest that this region should be used as a starting point to identify Passiflora species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25837628 PMCID: PMC4425017 DOI: 10.3390/ijms16047289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Characteristics of each internal transcribed spacer (ITS) dataset presented per subgenus.
| Subgenus | Barcode Region | Alignment Length (bp) | Variable Characters(%) | PI Characters (%) | Overall K2P (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITS1 | 53 | 16 | 12 | 291 | 32.99 | 22.68 | 8.8 | |
| ITS2 | 53 | 16 | 12 | 237 | 28.27 | 16.46 | 7.2 | |
| ITS1+2 | 53 | 16 | 12 | 528 | 30.87 | 19.89 | 8.0 | |
| ITS1 | 314 | 134 | 85 | 359 | 76.88 | 65.46 | 24.7 | |
| ITS2 | 314 | 134 | 85 | 258 | 72.87 | 56.59 | 14.0 | |
| ITS1+2 | 314 | 134 | 85 | 617 | 75.20 | 61.75 | 19.7 | |
| ITS1 | 101 | 8 | 3 | 301 | 40.53 | 24.92 | 4.8 | |
| ITS2 | 101 | 8 | 3 | 226 | 44.25 | 25.22 | 5.8 | |
| ITS1+2 | 101 | 8 | 3 | 527 | 42.13 | 25.05 | 5.3 | |
| ITS1 | 287 | 64 | 46 | 292 | 55.48 | 39.73 | 8.8 | |
| ITS2 | 287 | 64 | 46 | 249 | 52.21 | 30.92 | 3.8 | |
| ITS1+2 | 287 | 64 | 46 | 541 | 53.97 | 35.67 | 6.5 |
ITS, ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer; BP, base pairs; PI, parsimony informative; K2P, pairwise genetic distance Kimura-2-Parameters.
Figure 1Relative abundance of intra- and inter-specific Kimura-2-Parameter pairwise distance considering the ITS1 dataset in subgenera Astrophea, Decaloba, Deidamioides, and Passiflora.
DNA barcoding performance evaluated based on similarity methods per ITS dataset per subgenus.
| Subgenus | Barcode Region | BM (%) | BCM (%) | Threshold (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct | Ambiguous | Incorrect | Correct | Ambiguous | Incorrect | No Match | ||||
| ITS1 | 53 | 73.58 | 5.66 | 20.75 | 73.58 | 3.77 | 5.66 | 16.98 | 1.51 | |
| ITS2 | 53 | 73.58 | 3.77 | 22.64 | 73.58 | 3.77 | 9.43 | 13.20 | 2.97 | |
| ITS1+2 | 53 | 73.58 | 3.77 | 22.64 | 73.58 | 3.77 | 5.66 | 16.98 | 1.92 | |
| ITS1 | 314 | 63.05 | 4.13 | 32.80 | 61.78 | 3.82 | 23.24 | 11.14 | 3.77 | |
| ITS2 | 314 | 50.95 | 16.87 | 32.16 | 50.31 | 16.55 | 25.15 | 7.96 | 3.46 | |
| ITS1+2 | 314 | 64.64 | 1.27 | 34.07 | 64.01 | 1.27 | 23.88 | 10.82 | 3.43 | |
| ITS1 | 101 | 96.03 | 0 | 4.96 | 95.04 | 0 | 0 | 4.95 | 2.98 | |
| ITS2 | 101 | 96.03 | 0 | 4.96 | 95.04 | 0 | 0 | 4.95 | 5.41 | |
| ITS1+2 | 101 | 96.03 | 0 | 4.96 | 95.04 | 0 | 0 | 4.95 | 3.56 | |
| ITS1 | 287 | 81.53 | 1.74 | 16.72 | 78.39 | 1.39 | 5.57 | 14.63 | 1.83 | |
| ITS2 | 287 | 54.70 | 28.57 | 16.72 | 50.87 | 27.87 | 9.40 | 11.84 | 1.19 | |
| ITS1+2 | 287 | 81.18 | 1.74 | 17.07 | 77.00 | 1.39 | 4.52 | 17.07 | 1.28 | |
BM, best match, and BCM, best close match (according to [53]) obtained in TaxonDNA software.
Comparison of tree-based (NJ, ML, and BI) and similarity (BM and BCM) methods performance for different ITS datasets and subgenera. The highest values of percentage of correct individuals’ identification for each subgenus and barcode region are shown in bold.
| Subgenus | Barcode Region | Correct Identifications (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ | ML | BI | BM | BCM | |||
| ITS1 | 53 | 45.28 | 22.64 | 73.58 | 73.58 | ||
| ITS2 | 53 | 35.85 | 13.21 | 50.94 | |||
| ITS1+2 | 53 | 49.06 | 49.06 | 56.60 | |||
| ITS1 | 314 | 23.25 | 22.58 | 33.76 | 61.78 | ||
| ITS2 | 314 | 21.34 | 15.29 | 29.30 | 50.31 | ||
| ITS1+2 | 314 | 31.85 | 33.76 | 38.22 | 64.01 | ||
| ITS1 | 101 | 11.88 | 11.88 | 96.03 | 95.04 | ||
| ITS2 | 101 | 29.70 | 2.97 | 28.71 | 95.04 | ||
| ITS1+2 | 101 | 28.71 | 27.72 | 96.03 | 95.04 | ||
| ITS1 | 287 | 28.92 | 7.67 | 65.85 | 78.39 | ||
| ITS2 | 287 | 14.29 | 2.44 | 24.04 | 50.87 | ||
| ITS1+2 | 287 | 33.80 | 33.10 | 68.64 | 77.00 | ||
NJ, Neighbor-Joining; ML, Maximum Likelihood; BI, Bayesian inference; BM, best match; BCM, best close match.