» Articles » PMID: 37767518

Implementation of Machine Learning in DNA Barcoding for Determining the Plant Family Taxonomy

Overview
Journal Heliyon
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2023 Sep 28
PMID 37767518
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The DNA barcoding approach has been used extensively in taxonomy and phylogenetics. The differences in certain DNA sequences are able to differentiate and help classify organisms into taxa. It has been used in cases of taxonomic disputes where morphology by itself is insufficient. This research aimed to utilize hierarchical clustering, an unsupervised machine learning method, to determine and resolve disputes in plant family taxonomy. We take a case study of Leguminosae that historically some classify into three families (Fabaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Mimosaceae) but others classify into one family (Leguminosae). This study is divided into several phases, which are: (i) data collection, (ii) data preprocessing, (iii) finding the best distance method, and (iv) determining disputed family. The data used are collected from several sources, including National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), journals, and websites. The data for validation of the methods were collected from NCBI. This was used to determine the best distance method for differentiating families or genera. The data for the case study in the Leguminosae group was collected from journals and a website. From the experiment that we have conducted, we found that the Pearson method is the best distance method to do clustering ITS sequence of plants, both in accuracy and computational cost. We use the Pearson method to determine the disputed family between Leguminosae. We found that the case study of Leguminosae should be grouped into one family based on our research.

Citing Articles

DNA N-gram analysis framework (DNAnamer): A generalized N-gram frequency analysis framework for the supervised classification of DNA sequences.

Malamon J Heliyon. 2024; 10(17):e36914.

PMID: 39281454 PMC: 11399624. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36914.

References
1.
Little D, Stevenson D . A comparison of algorithms for the identification of specimens using DNA barcodes: examples from gymnosperms. Cladistics. 2021; 23(1):1-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00126.x. View

2.
Schoch C, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton C, Kannan S, Khovanskaya R . NCBI Taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford). 2020; 2020. PMC: 7408187. DOI: 10.1093/database/baaa062. View

3.
Weitschek E, Fiscon G, Felici G . Supervised DNA Barcodes species classification: analysis, comparisons and results. BioData Min. 2014; 7(1):4. PMC: 4022351. DOI: 10.1186/1756-0381-7-4. View

4.
He T, Jiao L, Wiedenhoeft A, Yin Y . Machine learning approaches outperform distance- and tree-based methods for DNA barcoding of Pterocarpus wood. Planta. 2019; 249(5):1617-1625. DOI: 10.1007/s00425-019-03116-3. View

5.
. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015; 69(1A):S1-S111. DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.000778. View