Molecular identification of important Fly species in Wuhan using COI sequences


Abstract

Calyptratae is one of the most species-rich groups within the suborder Brachycera of Diptera and comprises 20% of the species diversity in this group. Calyptratae represent key model systems in research areas encompassing vector biology, forensic entomology, pollination ecology, and insect natural enemy interactions. Species identification with DNA barcodes has been demonstrated to be effective in different organisms. In this study, 40 species from 6 families and 22 genera of Calyptratae flies commonly found in the Wuhan area were successfully identified by assessing 658 bp of the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. Notably, six fly species are reported for the first time in Hubei Province, namely, Sarcophaga nathani, S. haemorrhoidalis, Fannia pusio, Lispe assimilis, L. pumila and Stomoxys uruma. Intraspecific variation ranged from 0% to 0.82%, whereas interspecific variation fluctuated from 1.04% and 18.52% when uncorrected p distances and the Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) model were used, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The results revealed that our sequences aligned with those of fly species already documented in public databases. For the first time, we characterized DNA barcodes from important fly species in the Wuhan area. This work significantly expanded the global Diptera DNA barcode reference library and provided foundational insights into the phylogeny of the fly fauna of Wuhan.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].