Introduction: Chacón-Monge et al. (2024) sought to test the accuracy of DNA barcoding for species identification in Pacific Central American shallow water echinoderms. They used cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) sequences derived from new material collected as part of the BioMar-ACG project in Costa Rica. Using their set of 348 echinoderm sequences, they compared species identification results from two online platforms: the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank using the nucleotide Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTn), and the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) Identification Engine. Objective: The present article is a response to their results and conclusions. Methods: We reinterpreted the results from the authors’ Appendix 2 to enable an objective comparison between the BOLD Identification Engine and BLASTn in GenBank. Results: While the authors found that both platforms were limited by the number of reference sequences available in their respective databases, they concluded that GenBank outperformed BOLD for identification; however, we identify several methodological flaws in their analysis. These include pseudoreplication amongst query sequences, contaminated sequences stemming from sampling errors, and a lack of standardization when interpreting results from the two platforms. Their assessment of the BOLD Identification Engine was also limited by improper selection of a reference database. Conclusion: Addressing these errors, we reinterpret their results and demonstrate that there is no difference in performance between the two platforms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Monckton et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: