2017
DOI: 10.1139/gen-2016-0215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating five different loci (rbcL, rpoB, rpoC1, matK, and ITS) for DNA barcoding of Indian orchids

Abstract: Orchidaceae, one of the largest families of angiosperms, is represented in India by 1600 species distributed in diverse habitats. Orchids are in high demand owing to their beautiful flowers and therapeutic properties. Overexploitation and habitat destruction have made many orchid species endangered. In the absence of effective identification methods, illicit trade of orchids continues unabated. Considering DNA barcoding as a potential identification tool, species discrimination capability of five loci, ITS, ma… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although matK was proposed as the best barcode, with 100% resolution in two previous Paphiopedilum studies [28,41], our study agreed with Parveen et al (2017), who found that denser sampling decreased the resolution of matK [42]. However, the combination of matK with another locus was recommended as well.…”
Section: Genetic Diversity and Identification Of The Paphiopedilum Posupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Although matK was proposed as the best barcode, with 100% resolution in two previous Paphiopedilum studies [28,41], our study agreed with Parveen et al (2017), who found that denser sampling decreased the resolution of matK [42]. However, the combination of matK with another locus was recommended as well.…”
Section: Genetic Diversity and Identification Of The Paphiopedilum Posupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The reason for this seemingly ambiguity could be that for the unknown sample, the sequence being tested is not species-specific as it has been revealed that none of the barcode loci provides 100% species discrimination across the plant kingdom, (Kress et al 2005;Rubinoff et al 2006). Therefore, the need for a multi-locus barcode was realized by many authors (Chase et al 2007;Kress et al 2005;Kress and Erickson 2007;Mishra et al 2017;Parveen et al 2017). Though the revealed identities of the samples which were not authentic are tentative, the alarming trend emerging from the results is that substitutions are not according to the well known Ayurvedic principle for rational substitution of drugs known as ''Abhava Pratinidhi Dravyas'', propounded by Bhavmishra in sixteenth century A.D (Joshi et al 2012;Giri 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Singh et al 2012) and psbA-trnH spacer for Myristica spp. (Swetha et al 2017), generally, a combination of loci are required for the best species discrimination (Parveen et al 2017;Mishra et al 2017). Thus, in a number of studies, ITS, ITS2, matK and rbcL, along with a few others, such as rpoC1 and trnH-psbA spacer, have been used for the identification of medicinal plants and their herbal samples available in the markets (Song et al 2009, Kool et al 2012, Yuan et al 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Department of Botany at the University of Delhi has pioneered DNA barcoding of orchids in India, focusing on several medicinal and threatened species. Research has ranged from checking the applicability of the recommended locus/loci for congeneric species (Parveen et al, 2012;Singh et al, 2012;Khasim & Ramadu, 2018) to diverse orchid taxa (Parveen et al, 2017;Kishor & Sharma, 2018). Several genetic barcoding markers such as ITS, matK, rbcL, and rpoB and rpoC1, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLPs), double-digested random amplified DNA (ddRAD), inter simple sequence repeat (ISSRs), random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPDs, single primer amplification reactions (SPAR), simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in various taxon-specific combinations aided in assessing genetic diversity in nature (Sreedhar et al, 2007;Sharma et al, 2011Sharma et al, , 2012aSharma et al, , 2013aChattopadhyay et al, 2012;Bhattacharyya et al, 2013Bhattacharyya et al, , 2017Manners et al, 2013;Thakur & Kaur, 2013;Bhattacharyya & Kumaria, 2015;Ramesh et al, 2016;Roy et al, 2017;Rao, 2020).…”
Section: Cytology and Molecular Biologymentioning
confidence: 99%