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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Parasites & vectors Jg. 7; H. 1; S. 93 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
London
Springer-Verlag
03.03.2014
BioMed Central Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1756-3305, 1756-3305 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | 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 Besides the 1,834 published sequences of 189 tick species from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Database, 430 unpublished sequences representing 59 tick species were also successfully screened by Bayesian analyses.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. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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.BACKGROUNDThe 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.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.METHODSIn 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.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).RESULTSGenetic 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).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.CONCLUSIONSAs 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. 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. Doc number: 93 Abstract 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. Abstract 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. |
| ArticleNumber | 93 |
| Author | Jia, Guangle Lin, Xiangmei Wu, Shaoqiang Mei, Lin Deng, Junhua Lv, Jizhou Zhang, Yongning Yuan, Xiangfen Wang, Caixia Chen, Yan Feng, Chunyan Wang, Qin |
| AuthorAffiliation | 1 Institute of Animal Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China 2 Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 1 Institute of Animal Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China – name: 2 Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100029, People’s Republic of China |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 fullname: Lv, Jizhou – sequence: 2 fullname: Wu, Shaoqiang – sequence: 3 fullname: Zhang, Yongning – sequence: 4 fullname: Chen, Yan – sequence: 5 fullname: Feng, Chunyan – sequence: 6 fullname: Yuan, Xiangfen – sequence: 7 fullname: Jia, Guangle – sequence: 8 fullname: Deng, Junhua – sequence: 9 fullname: Wang, Caixia – sequence: 10 fullname: Wang, Qin – sequence: 11 fullname: Mei, Lin – sequence: 12 fullname: Lin, Xiangmei |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24589289$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqNkktrGzEUhYeS0jzabZetoBsHMoneM-qiYNyXITQLJ2uh0cNRGI8caVxa-uerySTGCQSyku7Vdw660jks9rrQ2aJ4j-ApQjU_QxXjJSGQlVUpyKviYNvY29nvF4cp3UDIoWD8TbGPKasFrsVB8W-akk1pZbseBAdc2ETw9dcUuKiWQzOByexifgIQX4CYD07A_HKBc43H-jhLIkhrq71NwJss8c5r1fvQDYb9tQXzP8F4o8BkqlX0nx_q47fFa6faZN_dr0fF1fdvl7Of5fnFj_lsel5qjmhfIq6N004b7rhRlCla18aJRluFnSPCMMW1dkRVkDtjha5MVUFMIERCUCfIUTEffU1QN3Id_UrFvzIoL-8aIS6lir3XrZW1qTHFTtNGE9pgJJRzvOHGNRWnvGLZ68votd40K2t0njeq9pHp45POX8tl-C2JoExwmg0m9wYx3G5s6uXKJ23bVnU2bJJEnJOMcfYClCFMcMUr8gIUcgoJwXVGPz1Bb_Knd_kDBopBTBEc3uzD7pzbAR-Sk4HTEdAxpBSt2yIIyiGackifHNInKymGK9InAu37u5zkd_Lt87KzUZayf7e0cee6zyk-jgqnglTL6JO8WmCYh4NQYCYQ-Q939_q0 |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1590_S1984_29612016053 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04615_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_017_0189_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12985_025_02751_5 crossref_primary_10_1089_vbz_2023_0135 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0234005 crossref_primary_10_3897_zookeys_549_6925 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_actatropica_2025_107685 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_017_0192_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2022_102105 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_016_1608_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2020_101379 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2021_101777 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apjtb_2016_05_003 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12686_020_01129_9 crossref_primary_10_1155_2024_8814592 crossref_primary_10_3390_pathogens11101090 crossref_primary_10_3897_zookeys_1215_123624 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2016_09_002 crossref_primary_10_3390_pathogens11080862 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_019_00439_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2016_10_013 crossref_primary_10_1111_mve_12660 crossref_primary_10_1089_vbz_2025_0011 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13104_020_05326_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2022_101920 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12917_023_03652_x crossref_primary_10_3390_ani15121694 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms9050919 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_meegid_2024_105663 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2023_1209210 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_025_94605_x crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2023_1264939 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2025_102521 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2021_101676 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0208615 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_018_2798_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ympev_2019_106579 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_025_06919_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_022_00694_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s12161_017_1043_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_020_04272_2 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms25052955 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2019_05_020 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dsr_2025_104476 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2021_101682 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms11082036 crossref_primary_10_1089_vbz_2020_2706 crossref_primary_10_1111_jvec_12403 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2025_1617204 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2016_11_004 crossref_primary_10_1002_ece3_10641 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani13233686 crossref_primary_10_2300_acari_34_11 crossref_primary_10_3390_vaccines10111909 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2017_03_001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ympev_2017_06_002 crossref_primary_10_14202_vetworld_2020_1910_1921 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_018_3048_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_016_1365_0 crossref_primary_10_3958_059_049_0332 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_energy_2025_137057 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2021_101730 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_015_1056_2 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2025_1623318 crossref_primary_10_3390_insects12111016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2024_101105 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_020_04043_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_014_9854_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11230_021_10008_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_019_00418_9 crossref_primary_10_1139_gen_2018_0168 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10201_024_00771_8 crossref_primary_10_1002_jemt_24620 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_onehlt_2024_100949 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00436_023_08093_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_025_01010_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2020_101472 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2022_102001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cimid_2024_102243 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11686_024_00846_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cimid_2018_05_002 crossref_primary_10_3390_v14051041 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fsigen_2022_102754 crossref_primary_10_3390_vetsci12020123 crossref_primary_10_3390_vetsci10020141 crossref_primary_10_1051_bioconf_202517302011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2021_100611 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani13091488 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2018_04_007 crossref_primary_10_3201_eid2612_181686 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_017_0120_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_018_0279_2 crossref_primary_10_3390_insects13070565 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_022_00763_2 crossref_primary_10_24870_cjb_2018_000118 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_017_2424_x crossref_primary_10_3390_insects15090651 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_024_00985_6 crossref_primary_10_14202_vetworld_2020_1462_1472 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_5641 crossref_primary_10_1093_jme_tjae116 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_024_06382_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00436_015_4766_7 crossref_primary_10_3390_pathogens8040289 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2022_101899 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2019_02_011 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0223735 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2024_1500146 crossref_primary_10_1080_23802359_2018_1532825 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_018_2669_z crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms10071306 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_017_1997_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2021_100551 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0133250 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_024_06563_4 crossref_primary_10_1111_aen_12630 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0031182017001342 crossref_primary_10_2217_fmb_16_5 crossref_primary_10_7705_biomedica_v36i2_3301 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_023_05998_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2023_102238 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_015_0956_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13127_016_0317_z crossref_primary_10_1017_S0025315423000759 crossref_primary_10_1080_01647954_2024_2325497 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2024_101165 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12917_020_02733_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_1748_5967_12612 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18157980 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0275090 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2024_102405 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2023_100908 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04898_w crossref_primary_10_1128_JCM_01728_17 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2020_00141 crossref_primary_10_1186_1756_3305_7_202 crossref_primary_10_3390_genes14030606 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0255138 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani15070975 crossref_primary_10_14411_fp_2019_007 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms10061086 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_015_0665_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_vprsr_2024_101180 crossref_primary_10_3390_pathogens9110937 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_62554_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_022_00768_x crossref_primary_10_3390_ani13203232 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_022_29298_1 crossref_primary_10_1111_mec_16248 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_marenvres_2025_107450 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2023_102266 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2024_1500930 crossref_primary_10_3390_genes13112049 crossref_primary_10_1089_vbz_2024_0052 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2017_05_009 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_017_2376_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_025_01051_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04625_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_018_0285_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_pathogens12010098 crossref_primary_10_1080_01647954_2022_2058085 crossref_primary_10_2217_fmb_2020_0145 crossref_primary_10_1139_gen_2015_0179 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_019_3738_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04836_w crossref_primary_10_1007_s00436_015_4826_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2016_07_014 crossref_primary_10_1093_jme_tjaa063 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms12061046 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_025_97658_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_016_1927_1 crossref_primary_10_1093_cid_cix463 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_017_2037_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2022_102099 crossref_primary_10_3201_eid2704_203366 crossref_primary_10_1111_mve_12589 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2016_08_002 crossref_primary_10_1134_S0013873818090130 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms13092064 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jgeb_2025_100460 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2018_02_020 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijpara_2022_11_002 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_017_1985_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_024_00916_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12866_020_01739_1 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcimb_2023_1132495 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_022_00756_1 crossref_primary_10_1134_S1062359017030025 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_6911 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ttbdis_2023_102247 crossref_primary_10_1089_vbz_2024_0034 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms10081663 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_023_05718_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijppaw_2024_101031 crossref_primary_10_3109_24701394_2016_1174224 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10493_018_0324_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sjbs_2018_06_007 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_024_06643_5 crossref_primary_10_3897_zookeys_1180_108418 crossref_primary_10_1128_JCM_00532_18 crossref_primary_10_1080_24701394_2016_1278538 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00436_024_08311_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04639_z |
| Cites_doi | 10.1080/01647950808683704 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 10.1371/journal.pone.0014156 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00374-3 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 10.1186/1756-3305-6-183 10.1371/journal.pone.0046190 10.1093/jmedent/45.5.817 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020312 10.1007/s004360050433 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[0032:AOTSRA]2.0.CO;2 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03055.x 10.1186/1756-3305-6-213 10.1371/journal.pone.0008613 10.1093/aesa/92.1.117 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x 10.1073/pnas.0510466103 10.1006/mpev.1998.0595 10.1186/1471-2148-8-50 10.1073/pnas.91.21.10034 10.1080/10635150802032990 10.1186/1756-3305-6-310 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 10.1007/BF01731581 10.1007/s10493-010-9365-9 10.1006/mpev.2001.1018 10.1006/mpev.2000.0762 10.1006/mpev.1995.1033 10.1016/j.ijpara.2011.03.008 10.1007/s11230-005-9024-4 10.1073/pnas.0406166101 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 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. Copyright © 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. – notice: 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 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. – notice: Copyright © 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 Lv et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. |
| DBID | FBQ C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7SN 7SS 7X7 7XB 88E 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR C1K CCPQU DWQXO F1W FYUFA GHDGH H95 K9. L.G M0S M1P M7N PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI 7X8 7TM 7S9 L.6 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-3305-7-93 |
| DatabaseName | AGRIS Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Ecology Abstracts Entomology Abstracts (Full archive) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central (subscription) Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition) Medical Database Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition MEDLINE - Academic Nucleic Acids Abstracts AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Health & Medical Research Collection Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Ecology Abstracts ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Entomology Abstracts ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic Nucleic Acids Abstracts AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA Publicly Available Content Database Entomology Abstracts |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: PIMPY name: Publicly Available Content Database url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Zoology |
| EISSN | 1756-3305 |
| EndPage | 93 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_8d8242fc4bc34b219aff6b6dfb764675 PMC3945964 3240303841 24589289 10_1186_1756_3305_7_93 US201500092591 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 123 29O 2VQ 2WC 2XV 4.4 53G 5VS 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML ABDBF ABUWG ACGFS ACIHN ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHBYD AHMBA AHSBF AHYZX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBLON EBS ECGQY EJD EMOBN ESX F5P FBQ FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 H13 HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR IPNFZ ISR ITC KQ8 M1P M48 M~E O5R O5S OK1 PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO RBZ RIG RNS ROL RPM RSV SBL SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS UKHRP ~8M OVT PHGZM PJZUB PPXIY PUEGO AAYXX AFFHD CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7SN 7SS 7XB 8FK AZQEC C1K DWQXO F1W H95 K9. L.G M7N PKEHL PQEST PQUKI 7X8 7TM 7S9 L.6 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c614t-16cdfcfcd6f6da45a488df9bcea2ff39d5a6ccf3a706fde9c7d77023001994f93 |
| IEDL.DBID | RSV |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 241 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000335072900006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1756-3305 |
| IngestDate | Fri Oct 03 12:31:33 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 01:56:43 EST 2025 Thu Sep 04 19:22:55 EDT 2025 Sun Nov 09 10:00:55 EST 2025 Fri Sep 05 08:01:15 EDT 2025 Sun Oct 19 01:34:09 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:06:16 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 04:02:08 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:35:09 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:31:50 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 09:46:58 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Nearest neighbour 16S rDNA Ticks ITS2 12S rDNA DNA Barcode BLASTn COI Species identification |
| Language | English |
| License | 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. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c614t-16cdfcfcd6f6da45a488df9bcea2ff39d5a6ccf3a706fde9c7d77023001994f93 |
| Notes | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://link.springer.com/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93 |
| PMID | 24589289 |
| PQID | 1505024109 |
| PQPubID | 55241 |
| PageCount | 1 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_8d8242fc4bc34b219aff6b6dfb764675 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3945964 proquest_miscellaneous_1663643654 proquest_miscellaneous_1512327673 proquest_miscellaneous_1506403328 proquest_journals_1505024109 pubmed_primary_24589289 crossref_primary_10_1186_1756_3305_7_93 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_1756_3305_7_93 springer_journals_10_1186_1756_3305_7_93 fao_agris_US201500092591 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2014-03-03 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2014-03-03 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2014 text: 2014-03-03 day: 03 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Parasites & vectors |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | Parasites Vectors |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Parasit Vectors |
| PublicationYear | 2014 |
| Publisher | Springer-Verlag BioMed Central Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Springer-Verlag – name: BioMed Central – name: Springer Nature B.V – name: BMC |
| References | AJ Mangold (1229_CR3) 1998; 84 DA Caporale (1229_CR7) 1995; 4 AA Guglielmone (1229_CR8) 2006; 65 R Chen (1229_CR14) 2012; 7 O Folmer (1229_CR25) 1994; 3 PD Hebert (1229_CR11) 2004; 2 S Ratnasingham (1229_CR36) 2007; 7 PD Hebert (1229_CR10) 2004; 101 SJ Dobson (1229_CR17) 1999; 11 F Ronquist (1229_CR32) 2012; 61 A Murrell (1229_CR20) 2000; 16 L Chitimia (1229_CR21) 2010; 52 J Lv (1229_CR12) 2013 E Claerebout (1229_CR6) 2013; 6 SS Tobe (1229_CR15) 2010; 5 C Camacho (1229_CR34) 2009; 10 WC Black (1229_CR16) 1994; 91 LM Liu (1229_CR5) 2013; 6 A Murrell (1229_CR18) 1999; 12 JAA Nylander (1229_CR33) 2004 F Dantas-Torres (1229_CR4) 2013; 6 M Hajibabaei (1229_CR9) 2006; 103 DJ Rees (1229_CR24) 2003; 27 Y Xia (1229_CR13) 2012; 12 JD Thompson (1229_CR28) 1994; 22 DE Norris (1229_CR19) 1999; 92 S Song (1229_CR22) 2011; 41 HA Ross (1229_CR35) 2008; 57 A Murrell (1229_CR23) 2001; 21 S Chen (1229_CR30) 2010; 5 M Kimura (1229_CR29) 1980; 16 L Beati (1229_CR26) 2001; 87 M Ryberg (1229_CR37) 2008; 8 DA Apanaskevich (1229_CR1) 2008; 34 DA Apanaskevich (1229_CR2) 2008; 45 K Tamura (1229_CR27) 2011; 28 CP Meyer (1229_CR31) 2005; 3 15465915 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 12;101(41):14812-7 22357727 - Syst Biol. 2012 May;61(3):539-42 10222164 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1999 Jun;12(1):83-6 23056258 - PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46190 10191073 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1999 Mar;11(2):288-95 9660138 - Parasitol Res. 1998 Jun;84(6):478-84 24499619 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6(1):310 23880226 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:213 23631370 - Mitochondrial DNA. 2014 Apr;25(2):142-9 21546353 - Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Oct;28(10):2731-9 20062805 - PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8613 21152400 - PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e14156 23777784 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:183 20473707 - Exp Appl Acarol. 2010 Nov;52(3):305-11 10877935 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 Jul;16(1):1-7 21824335 - Mol Ecol Resour. 2012 Jan;12(1):48-56 15455034 - PLoS Biol. 2004 Oct;2(10):e312 18826023 - J Med Entomol. 2008 Sep;45(5):817-31 18784790 - Mol Ecol Notes. 2007 May 1;7(3):355-364 11227901 - J Parasitol. 2001 Feb;87(1):32-48 12679078 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Apr;27(1):131-42 7881515 - Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1994 Oct;3(5):294-9 7463489 - J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111-20 7937832 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 11;91(21):10034-8 11697919 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Nov;21(2):244-58 21540032 - Int J Parasitol. 2011 Jul;41(8):871-80 18398767 - Syst Biol. 2008 Apr;57(2):216-30 20003500 - BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:421 16612654 - Syst Parasitol. 2006 Sep;65(1):1-11 16418261 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):968-71 16336051 - PLoS Biol. 2005 Dec;3(12):e422 18282272 - BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:50 8747292 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1995 Dec;4(4):361-5 7984417 - Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673-80 |
| References_xml | – volume: 28 start-page: 2731 issue: 10 year: 2011 ident: 1229_CR27 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo – volume-title: MrModeltest v2. Computer program distributed by the author year: 2004 ident: 1229_CR33 – volume: 3 start-page: 294 issue: 5 year: 1994 ident: 1229_CR25 publication-title: Mar Biotechnol(NY) – volume: 34 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2008 ident: 1229_CR1 publication-title: Int J Acarol doi: 10.1080/01647950808683704 – volume: 10 start-page: 421 year: 2009 ident: 1229_CR34 publication-title: BMC bioinformatics doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 – volume: 5 start-page: e14156 issue: 11 year: 2010 ident: 1229_CR15 publication-title: PloS one doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014156 – volume: 11 start-page: 288 issue: 2 year: 1999 ident: 1229_CR17 publication-title: Mol Ecol Resour – volume: 22 start-page: 4673 issue: 22 year: 1994 ident: 1229_CR28 publication-title: Nucleic Acids Res doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 – volume: 27 start-page: 131 issue: 1 year: 2003 ident: 1229_CR24 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00374-3 – volume: 3 start-page: e422 issue: 12 year: 2005 ident: 1229_CR31 publication-title: PLoS Biol doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 – volume: 6 start-page: 183 year: 2013 ident: 1229_CR6 publication-title: Parasit Vectors doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-6-183 – volume: 7 start-page: e46190 issue: 10 year: 2012 ident: 1229_CR14 publication-title: PloS one doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046190 – volume: 45 start-page: 817 issue: 5 year: 2008 ident: 1229_CR2 publication-title: J Med Entomol doi: 10.1093/jmedent/45.5.817 – volume: 2 start-page: e312 issue: 10 year: 2004 ident: 1229_CR11 publication-title: PLoS Biol doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020312 – volume: 84 start-page: 478 issue: 6 year: 1998 ident: 1229_CR3 publication-title: Parasitol Res doi: 10.1007/s004360050433 – volume: 87 start-page: 32 issue: 1 year: 2001 ident: 1229_CR26 publication-title: J Parasitol doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[0032:AOTSRA]2.0.CO;2 – volume: 12 start-page: 48 issue: 1 year: 2012 ident: 1229_CR13 publication-title: Mol Ecol Resour doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03055.x – volume: 6 start-page: 213 year: 2013 ident: 1229_CR4 publication-title: Parasit Vectors doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-6-213 – volume: 5 start-page: e8613 issue: 1 year: 2010 ident: 1229_CR30 publication-title: PloS one doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008613 – volume: 92 start-page: 117 issue: 1 year: 1999 ident: 1229_CR19 publication-title: Ann Entomol Soc Am doi: 10.1093/aesa/92.1.117 – volume: 7 start-page: 355 issue: 3 year: 2007 ident: 1229_CR36 publication-title: Mol Ecol Notes doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x – volume: 103 start-page: 968 issue: 4 year: 2006 ident: 1229_CR9 publication-title: Proc Nati Acad Sci U S A doi: 10.1073/pnas.0510466103 – volume: 12 start-page: 83 issue: 1 year: 1999 ident: 1229_CR18 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo doi: 10.1006/mpev.1998.0595 – volume: 8 start-page: 50 year: 2008 ident: 1229_CR37 publication-title: BMC Evol Biol doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-50 – volume: 91 start-page: 10034 issue: 21 year: 1994 ident: 1229_CR16 publication-title: Proc Nati Acad Sci U S A doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.21.10034 – volume: 57 start-page: 216 issue: 2 year: 2008 ident: 1229_CR35 publication-title: Syst Biol doi: 10.1080/10635150802032990 – volume: 6 start-page: 310 year: 2013 ident: 1229_CR5 publication-title: Parasit Vectors doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-6-310 – volume: 61 start-page: 539 issue: 3 year: 2012 ident: 1229_CR32 publication-title: Syst Biol doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 – volume: 16 start-page: 111 issue: 2 year: 1980 ident: 1229_CR29 publication-title: J Mol Evol doi: 10.1007/BF01731581 – volume: 52 start-page: 305 issue: 3 year: 2010 ident: 1229_CR21 publication-title: Exp Appl Acarol doi: 10.1007/s10493-010-9365-9 – volume-title: Mitochondrial DNA year: 2013 ident: 1229_CR12 – volume: 21 start-page: 244 issue: 2 year: 2001 ident: 1229_CR23 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo doi: 10.1006/mpev.2001.1018 – volume: 16 start-page: 1 issue: 1 year: 2000 ident: 1229_CR20 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo doi: 10.1006/mpev.2000.0762 – volume: 4 start-page: 361 issue: 4 year: 1995 ident: 1229_CR7 publication-title: Mol Phylogenet Evo doi: 10.1006/mpev.1995.1033 – volume: 41 start-page: 871 issue: 8 year: 2011 ident: 1229_CR22 publication-title: Int J Parasitol doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2011.03.008 – volume: 65 start-page: 1 issue: 1 year: 2006 ident: 1229_CR8 publication-title: Syst Parasitol doi: 10.1007/s11230-005-9024-4 – volume: 101 start-page: 14812 issue: 41 year: 2004 ident: 1229_CR10 publication-title: Proc Nati Acad Sci U S A doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406166101 – reference: 7984417 - Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673-80 – reference: 23777784 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:183 – reference: 9660138 - Parasitol Res. 1998 Jun;84(6):478-84 – reference: 16418261 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):968-71 – reference: 15455034 - PLoS Biol. 2004 Oct;2(10):e312 – reference: 10191073 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1999 Mar;11(2):288-95 – reference: 23880226 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:213 – reference: 22357727 - Syst Biol. 2012 May;61(3):539-42 – reference: 20003500 - BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:421 – reference: 11227901 - J Parasitol. 2001 Feb;87(1):32-48 – reference: 24499619 - Parasit Vectors. 2013;6(1):310 – reference: 11697919 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Nov;21(2):244-58 – reference: 23056258 - PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46190 – reference: 7881515 - Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1994 Oct;3(5):294-9 – reference: 18398767 - Syst Biol. 2008 Apr;57(2):216-30 – reference: 18784790 - Mol Ecol Notes. 2007 May 1;7(3):355-364 – reference: 21152400 - PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e14156 – reference: 10877935 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 Jul;16(1):1-7 – reference: 21540032 - Int J Parasitol. 2011 Jul;41(8):871-80 – reference: 10222164 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1999 Jun;12(1):83-6 – reference: 15465915 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Oct 12;101(41):14812-7 – reference: 18826023 - J Med Entomol. 2008 Sep;45(5):817-31 – reference: 20473707 - Exp Appl Acarol. 2010 Nov;52(3):305-11 – reference: 23631370 - Mitochondrial DNA. 2014 Apr;25(2):142-9 – reference: 7463489 - J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111-20 – reference: 21824335 - Mol Ecol Resour. 2012 Jan;12(1):48-56 – reference: 18282272 - BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:50 – reference: 8747292 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1995 Dec;4(4):361-5 – reference: 7937832 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 11;91(21):10034-8 – reference: 16336051 - PLoS Biol. 2005 Dec;3(12):e422 – reference: 20062805 - PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8613 – reference: 12679078 - Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Apr;27(1):131-42 – reference: 21546353 - Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Oct;28(10):2731-9 – reference: 16612654 - Syst Parasitol. 2006 Sep;65(1):1-11 |
| SSID | ssj0060956 |
| Score | 2.5008821 |
| Snippet | 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... 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... 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,... Doc number: 93 Abstract Background: The 5' region of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) is the standard marker for DNA barcoding. However, COI has proved to be of... 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... Abstract 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... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref springer fao |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 93 |
| SubjectTerms | 16S rDNA Acari Animals Arachnids barcoding Base Sequence Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine COI cytochrome-c oxidase Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA DNA Barcode DNA barcoding DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic DNA Primers - genetics DNA, Ribosomal - chemistry DNA, Ribosomal - genetics DNA, Ribosomal Spacer - chemistry DNA, Ribosomal Spacer - genetics Electron Transport Complex IV - genetics Entomology Genes genetic markers Genetic Markers - genetics Genetic Variation Infectious Diseases internal transcribed spacers ITS2 Ixodida Ixodidae Methods Molecular Sequence Data Parasitology Phylogenetics Phylogeny Polymerase Chain Reaction ribosomal DNA Sequence Alignment Sequence Analysis, DNA Species identification Species Specificity Studies Ticks Ticks - classification Ticks - genetics Tropical Medicine uncertainty Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science Virology |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3fa9RAEF6kKPgi9WdTq6wgeIWGJtnsL9_OavFeTuFaKL4sm91MeyCJpFcR_Oed3SRHT2t98XFvJ-EyO5P5vmTyLSGvRYUogbPQqYYUpQQJqfLcp7UXQY3OFtrauNmEnM_V2Zn-fG2rr9AT1ssD9447VF5hFQFXVo6VFeaXBRCV8FBJgUke1UsR9Yxkqr8HBxU1MUg05kocYo0UKTJ3nspUs40SFJX6sbCAbW8CmX_2Sv72wjTWoeNt8mAAkHTa__GH5E7dPCL3vrTx8fhj8nO6ltqkLVBAc_p-PqXQ2fP4NRudHH2aHdBcLGiHEwd0drIocFz04308pKPh-0uk0HTph2aiuH7hhIgX6exH65fe0snUIdN-O473n5DT4w8nRx_TYYOF1GFVXqW5cB4cOC9AeFtyi9nsQVeutgUA055b4RwwKzMBvtZOeikDacmCojBo9pRsNW1T7xCaWasZZ14HilOxQnEJinuVWfAZ80VC0tHnxg3q42ETjK8mshAlTFgjE9bISKNZQt6s7b_1uht_tXwXlnBtFfSy4w8YRWaIIvOvKErIDgaAsed4ZzWniyI8BwpyVFznCdkbo8IM-X1pcJojuskznZBX62nMzPC6xTZ1exVtRJkx9MVtNgHSSiHZLTYIChE3Cl4m5FkfjOuLLUquNHLmhMiNMN3wxuZMs7yIKuJMl1wLPOdkDOhrl3ejp3f_h6efk_vo3TK28bE9srXqruoX5K77vlpedi9jFv8CDqZFwg priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database dbid: PIMPY link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3db9MwELegA4kXvmGBgYyERCctahrHX7ygMpjoA6VSN2nwYjl2XCpNzZZ2CIl_nrPrFAqjTzw6vljy-Xwf9vl3CL1kJXgJlPhMNQhRCsddKiy1aWWZR6PTudQ6FJvgo5E4PZXj-Dx6EdMqW50YFPUK7dnnbYMS7tna-BPzHrgxFKxLP5Nvzi9SX0PK37XGghrX0Y4H3hIdtDMefhx_bjWzx1ZjEbixL1gPLCdLIZ6nKU8l2TBMAb8fzI3T9VWu598ZlH9cowbrdHTn_87rLrodvVQ8WInVPXStmt9HN7_U4Qz-AfoxWON54tphB-T43WiAXaOn4ckc7h5-Gh7gPpvgBjoO8PB4kkM7X7X34ZcG-0eeEKfjmY0ZS0FI_IDglOLh99rOrMbdgYFw_nXb3n-ITo7eHx9-SGMVh9SA6V-mfWasM85Y5pjVBdWgMqyTpal07hyRlmpmjCOaZ8zZShpuOfeRUeZhi50kj1BnXs-rXYQzrSWhxEofR5UkF5Q7Qa3ItLMZsXmC0nYJlYkQ577SxpkKoY5gyi-58kuuuJIkQa_W9OcrcI9_Ur71ErGm8qDc4UPdTFXc40pYAQ6PM0VpSFGCKdDOsZJZV3IG9ogmaBfkSekpqG91Msn9YZPHvKKyn6C9VjpUVCIL9UsYEvRi3Q3b39_p6HlVXwYaVmQEeLGNxvvNnHGyhQY8T3BOGS0S9Hgl2-vJ5gUVEgLzBPENqd_gxmbPfPY1QJUTWVDJYMxuuz9-m96VnH6ynRNP0S3gWxGyAMke6iyby-oZumG-LWeL5nnc8D8BFTZgEw priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | Assessment of four DNA fragments (COI, 16S rDNA, ITS2, 12S rDNA) for species identification of the Ixodida (Acari: Ixodida) |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1756-3305-7-93 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24589289 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1505024109 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1506403328 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1512327673 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1663643654 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC3945964 https://doaj.org/article/8d8242fc4bc34b219aff6b6dfb764675 |
| Volume | 7 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000335072900006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: Open Access: BioMedCentral Open Access Titles customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20080101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20080101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20080101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1756-3305 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0060956 issn: 1756-3305 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20081201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3db9MwED_tAyRe-IYFRmUkJDppEWkc2zFv3dhEHyjVuqGyF8ux41IJNSjrEBL_PGc3qSgbE7xEcnyJkvN92uefAV7xAqMERn2lGqYomRMuzi2zcWm5R6PTqdQ6HDYhhsN8MpGjDUjavTCh2r1dkgyWOqh1zt-gn-MxZt8sFrGkm7CNri73qngy_tTaXo-exhtoxqvPrLmegNCPDsXp6rrg8mqN5B8LpcH_HN_7_y-_D3ebWJP0l8LxADbK-UO4fV6FmfRH8LO_QuUklSMOycm7YZ-4Wk_DxjfSPfw42Cc9PiY1duyTwek4xXa6bO_hIzXxWzUx2yYz29QdhaH2L8TQkgx-VHZmNen2DSblb9v23mM4Oz46PXwfN2cxxAYd-CLucWOdccZyx63OmEbFt04WptSpc1RaprkxjmqRcGdLaYQVwuc3iQcfdpI-ga15NS93gCRaS8qolT4bKmiaM-FyZvNEO5tQm0YQt8OkTANU7s_L-KpCwpJz5RmqPEOVUJJG8HpF_20J0fFXygM_6isqD60dblT1VDWaqnKbY9jiTFYYmhVo0LVzvODWFYKjV2ER7KDMKD1FI6zOxqmfMvLIVUz2IthtBUk1puBCYTfDQKiXyAherrpRif3KjJ6X1WWg4VlCkRc30fjoV3BBb6DB-BFDTM6yCJ4u5Xf1s2nGconpdQRiTbLXuLHeM599CYDjVGZMcnxnt5Xv337vWk4_-3fS53AHeZiFuj66C1uL-rJ8AbfM98Xsou7AppiIcM07sH1wNByddMK8CbZGgw-jz51gAH4BIppMag |
| linkProvider | Springer Nature |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1bb9MwFLamAYIX7rDAACOB6KRFS-PYjpEQKhvTqo2CtE6q9mIcOy6RUDPSjov4T_xGjt0kUBh92wOPrk-j-vRcPsfH30HoCcsAJVDiKtVgi5JYbsPUUBPmhjk2OhULpXyzCT4YpKOReLeCfjR3YVxZZRMTfaA2pXbvyLcAuFDIJ91IvDz5FLquUe50tWmhMTeL_fzbF9iyTV_0d-D_fRrHu6-H23th3VUg1JCKZmGXaWO11YZZZlRCFZiwsSLTuYqtJcJQxbS2RPGIWZMLzQ3nDqlHjkbXOvIlCPkXII5zV0LGR-0Gz3G3sZoYspuyLcjMLCTgUCEPBVlIfL4_AKQzq8qzoO3fFZp_HNP67Ld77X_T23V0tcbZuDd3jBtoJZ_cRJeOS3-KcAt977WMpLi02II43hn0sK3U2F_6w53tt_1N3GWHuIKJTdwfHsYwjufjDfhKhd011SKf4sLUNVfezN0DAVbj_tfSFEbhTk-rqnjejDduo6NzWfkdtDopJ_kawpFSglBihNsJZiROKbcpNWmkrImIiQMUNkYidU3S7nqFfJR-s5Yy6YxKOqOSXAoSoGet_MmcnuSfkq-czbVSjlbcf1BWY1lHKZmaFCCb1UmmSZJBMlPWsowZm3EGGZUGaA0sVqoxJCB5dBi712WOtYuKboDWG_uTdRicyl_GF6DH7TQEMHcqpSZ5eeplWBIR0MUyGYf8OeNkiQxgZ4DXjCYBujv3nnaxcUJTEafwK_iCXy1oY3FmUnzwZOtEJFQweGan8cDflnempu8t18QjdHlv-OZAHvQH-_fRFdBh4msayTpanVWn-QN0UX-eFdPqoQ8uGL0_b6_8Cewns-Q |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3daxQxEA-1fuCL39rVqhEEW-jSvc0m2YgvZ-vhoZyFa6X4ErLJznkgu2V7FcF_3kl29_BsLYKP2cwuZHYyM79k8gshL0WBWQJnvlINIUoGEuLccReXTng2OpMqY8JlE3IyyY-P1cEaedOfhQnV7v2WZHumwbM0VYvdEwftFM_FLsY8ESMS57GMFbtCrmb-wiCP1aefez_smdRER9N4_p2VMBTY-jG4gKkvSjTP10v-sWkaYtHo9v-N4g651eWgdNgazV2yVlb3yPUvdVhhv09-DpdsnbQGCihO9ydDCo2ZhQNxdGvv03iHDsSUNtixQ8eH0xTbadvexlca6o9wIgqnc9fVIwUT8B_ElJOOf9Ru7gzdGloE66_79vYDcjR6d7j3Pu7uaIgtBvZFPBDWgQXrBAhnMm7QIThQhS1NCsCU40ZYC8zIRIArlZVOSo97Ek9KDIo9JOtVXZUbhCbGKMaZUx4lFSzNuYScuzwx4BLm0ojE_S_TtiMw9_dofNMByORCe4Vqr1AttWIRebWUP2mpO_4q-dZbwFLKU26HB3Uz090M1rnLMZ0BmxWWZQU6egMgCuGgkAKjDY_IBtqPNjN0zvpomvqlJM9oxdUgIpu9UenORZxq7OaYIA0SFZEXy26c3H7HxlRlfRZkRJYw1MVlMj4rlkKyS2Qwr8TUU_AsIo9aW14ONs14rhB2R0SuWPmKNlZ7qvnXQETOVMaVwG9u9bb-2_Au1PTjfxd9Tm4c7I_0x_HkwxNyE9WZhdI_tknWF81Z-ZRcs98X89PmWZj1vwBIjVIi |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+four+DNA+fragments+%28COI%2C+16S+rDNA%2C+ITS2%2C+12S+rDNA%29+for+species+identification+of+the+Ixodida+%28Acari%3A+Ixodida%29&rft.jtitle=Parasites+%26+vectors&rft.au=Lv%2C+Jizhou&rft.au=Wu%2C+Shaoqiang&rft.au=Zhang%2C+Yongning&rft.au=Chen%2C+Yan&rft.date=2014-03-03&rft.pub=BioMed+Central&rft.eissn=1756-3305&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2F1756-3305-7-93&rft.externalDocID=10_1186_1756_3305_7_93 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1756-3305&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1756-3305&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1756-3305&client=summon |