Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Wrong data uploaded to gene bank or more severe problem?

Posted by DasGrimm on 27 Nov 2014 at 11:25 GMT

Dear colleagues,

during a recent GenBank harvest I captured one of your ITS accessions linked to this paper (JX856608 labelled as Tabernaemontana elegans, a Apocynaceae/Gentianales), which showed strongly divergent sequence type to what is usually found in the family.

Blasting of the sequence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g...) found two more of your accessions labelled as members of entirely different angiosperm orders (Fabales, Rosales) that are 100% identical:

1) Bauhinia purpurea, JX856541: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g...

2) Ficus racemosa, JX856457: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g...

Two more accessions (one Bauhinia, JX856406, same species the other labelled as another species of Ficus, JX856455) are 99% identical, which is extremely unusual for members of different angiosperm orders.

From the selection of next-best scoring sequences (not more than 86% identity, which would be a bit low for members of the same genus regarding ITS, put possible), Bauhinia ist the most likely candidate for the origin of above sequences. The same applies for one sequence you uploaded as Gardenia resinifera (JX856572; a Gentianales listed among your other Bauhinia accessions), which is definitely Bauhinia ITS
(http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih...)

I honestly hope that these are simple uploading errors, and not a general problem of bulk-barcoding studies like yours.

It would be appreciable to clean up your GenBank submissions linked to this study at your earliest convenience.

with best regards, Guido Grimm

No competing interests declared.

RE: Wrong data uploaded to gene bank or more severe problem?

sribashroy replied to DasGrimm on 09 Dec 2014 at 03:34 GMT

Thank you very much. We are re checking our sequence and will get back soon

No competing interests declared.