Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2016
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2016
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Testing the potential of DNA barcoding in vertebrate radiations: the case of the littoral cichlids (Pisces, Perciformes, Cichlidae) from Lake Tanganyika

Authors: Breman, Floris C.; Loix, Sara; Jordaens, Kurt; Snoeks, Jos; Van Steenberge, Maarten;

Data from: Testing the potential of DNA barcoding in vertebrate radiations: the case of the littoral cichlids (Pisces, Perciformes, Cichlidae) from Lake Tanganyika

Abstract

We obtained 398 cytochrome c oxidase subunit I barcodes of 96 morphospecies of Lake Tanganyika (LT) cichlids from the littoral zone. The potential of DNA barcoding in these fishes was tested using both species identification and species delineation methods. The best match (BM) and best close match (BCM) methods were used to evaluate the overall identification success. For this, three libraries were analysed in which the specimens were categorized into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTU) in three alternative ways: (A) morphologically distinct, including undescribed, species, (B) valid species and (C) complexes of morphologically similar or closely related species. For libraries A, B and C, 73, 73 and 96% (BM) and 72, 70 and 94% (BCM) of the specimens were correctly identified. Additionally, the potential of two species delineation methods was tested. The General Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC) analysis suggested 70 hypothetical species, while the Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD) method revealed 115 putative species. Although the ABGD method had a tendency to oversplit, it outperformed the GMYC analysis in retrieving the species. In most cases where ABGD suggested oversplitting, this was due to intraspecific geographical variation. The failure of the GMYC method to retrieve many species could be attributed to discrepancies between mitochondrial gene trees and the evolutionary histories of LT cichlid species. Littoral LT cichlids have complex evolutionary histories that include instances of hybridization, introgression and rapid speciation. Nevertheless, although the utility of DNA barcoding in identification is restricted to the level of complexes, it has potential for species discovery in cichlid radiations.

DNA sequence assemblyDNA sequence assembly used for the analyses, unique haplotypes (H001-H228) as in the phylogenetic tree (LTC.con). The two outgroup sequences (H227, H228) where only used for phylogeny reconstruction but not for the different species delineation and identification methods.barcodes_LTC.fasPhylogenetic treeBaysian Inference (BI) phylogenetic tree used for the ABGD method.LTC.con

Related Organizations
Keywords

species discovery, Cichlidae

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 12
    download downloads 1
  • 12
    views
    1
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
12
1
Related to Research communities