Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei delimitation by Automated Barcode Gap Discovery and neighbor-joining analyses: A review

Abstract

Identification and differentiation of morphologically similar species have been a significant challenge to taxonomists due to a higher degree of similarity in their physical appearances leading to make the taxonomic investigation more complex. Such a problem is more common in invertebrate soil animals such as earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei) since their identification requires observation of morphological characters that are very difficult and complex to visualize, especially in the case of sibling or subspecies. In this review, we assessed the utility of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene as a molecular marker for identification and differentiation among these species. We achieved this by analyzing their phylogeny using the neighbor-joining method and Automated Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD) by retrieving 84 COI sequences from NCBI. As a result, we found that the identification and differentiation success of Eisenia fetida was 96.42%, whereas, for Eisenia andrei, it was 100%. Besides, ABGD analysis suggested that the species failed to give a distinct barcode gap, and the partition pattern may be due to probable misidentification leading to generate discordance among results of ABGD and NJ tree. Finally, we suggest that the multiloci approach of the mitochondrial genome can be used to solve this taxonomic ambiguity making the molecular identification system more reliable and comprehensive fulfilling need of growing biodiversity conservation programs on a global scale. However, although the DNA based identification system in which many researchers used various molecular markers for species identification, Hebert [14] proposed the use of a partial fragment

Cryptic Species in Ecotoxicology

“…Nevertheless, speciation is a heterogenous process that often involves divergence along multiple axes of differentiation (genetic, physiological, ecological, behavioral, etc. ; De Queiroz, 2007), providing researchers with plenty of other potential means of species identification besides morphology. Consequently, cryptic species have been differentiated by various approaches ranging from molecular genetics (Fišer et al, 2018), to proteomics (Wilke et al, 2020), to pheromones (Lassance et al, 2019), and acoustic signals (Stiffler et al, 2018), to name a few.…”