2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.02.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

28S rDNA as an alternative marker for commercially important oyster identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While Magallana gigas in Alectryonella plicatula are readily distinguishable using mitochondrial (Liu et al, 2011; Crocetta et al, 2015) or nuclear markers (O’Foighil & Taylor, 2000; Salvi et al, 2014; Mazón-Suástegui et al, 2016), morphological misidentification between the two might be easy as reported by Bishop et al (2017) due the extensive degree of phenotypic plasticity of oysters. This example highlights the common difficulties encountered for identifying oysters based on shell morphology alone, and provides one more demonstration that misidentification regards not only closely related species but also taxonomic ranks as high as subfamilies (discussed in Salvi & Mariottini, 2021; see Salvi et al 2014 and Raith et al 2016 for examples regarding the subfamilies Striostreinae Harry, 1985, Ostreinae Rafinesque, 1815 and Saccostreinae Salvi & Mariottini, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While Magallana gigas in Alectryonella plicatula are readily distinguishable using mitochondrial (Liu et al, 2011; Crocetta et al, 2015) or nuclear markers (O’Foighil & Taylor, 2000; Salvi et al, 2014; Mazón-Suástegui et al, 2016), morphological misidentification between the two might be easy as reported by Bishop et al (2017) due the extensive degree of phenotypic plasticity of oysters. This example highlights the common difficulties encountered for identifying oysters based on shell morphology alone, and provides one more demonstration that misidentification regards not only closely related species but also taxonomic ranks as high as subfamilies (discussed in Salvi & Mariottini, 2021; see Salvi et al 2014 and Raith et al 2016 for examples regarding the subfamilies Striostreinae Harry, 1985, Ostreinae Rafinesque, 1815 and Saccostreinae Salvi & Mariottini, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not uncommon that COI has variable utility even among closely related species (Sigwart & Garbett, 2018). Other studies have proposed alternative markers such as 28S fragments for separating oyster species (Mazón-Suástegui et al, 2016). There is an ongoing taxonomic problem with C.(M.) iredalei and C.(M.) madrasensis, which are both formally considered to be junior synonyms of C.(M.) bilineata, but nonetheless these names are used routinely in aquaculture literature.…”
Section: Molecular Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are no population genetic studies for this species, but in the contribution by Cruz et al (2007) on the microsatellite loci for Crassostrea corteziensis, they mention that of the 11 loci characterized for the Cortez oyster, seven can be amplified in Saccostrea palmula, which makes them suitable for population studies. Maz´on-Su´astegui et al (2016) reported sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene, the nuclear intertranscribed spacer 1 (ITS-1), and the nuclear 28S ribosomal gene. By means of a phylogenetic analysis with sequences of other species of ostreids, these authors concluded that the 28S gene was more reliable in correctly identifying species; thus, it can be used as an alternative marker.…”
Section: Saccostrea Palmulamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this species, there is only a report of the sequences of COI, ITS-1, and 28S by Maz´on-Su´astegui et al (2016).…”
Section: Crassostrea Columbiensismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation