Botanists agree on DNA bar code for world's plants

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


After four years of debate, an international team of scientists from 25 institutions has agreed to a good—but not great—standard plant DNA bar code.

This metaphorical bar code—a short sequence of DNA unique to every species—could pave the way for a handheld plant “scanner” that could be used to quickly identify species intercepted from illegal logging operations or to identify potentially toxic plants in an emergency situation. It will also make the day-to-day work of identifying and studying new species a whole lot easier.

Scientists who study animals have long used the mitochondrial gene CO1 to build a DNA library of 60,000 species.  But getting botanists to agree on a single standard has been challenging because of the genetic diversity of plants.  Many research groups moved ahead with large-scale projects using their preferred gene or gene combination before a consensus had been reached. 

“It’s a very contentious issue,” Kenneth Cameron of the University of Wisconsin–Madison told Nature in 2008, “There are a lot of politics and personalities involved.”

But this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Cameron and the rest of the Consortium for the Barcode of Life Plant Working Group, recommended using two genes, rbcL and matK as the most “pragmatic” option.  The gene matK alone had previously been shown to classify 90 percent of plant species in one study, but it doesn’t work well in every plant group, so the scientists tacked on the second gene which is more of a jack-of-all-trades.

In a test run, the scientists say the standard bar code can only discriminate 72 percent of species across the plant world, with the remainder being properly assigned to closely related species groups. 

“There is little doubt that the approaches used in plant DNA bar coding will be refined in the future,” the authors write, but “the key foundation step for plant bar coding is in reaching agreement on a standard set of [genes] to enable large-scale sequencing and the development of a global plant bar coding infrastructure.”

Image of barcode courtesy Carsten Brix via Flickr

Brendan Borrell is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, Outside, Scientific American, and many other publications, and is the co-author (with ecologist Manuel Molles) of the textbook Environment: Science, Issues, Solutions. He traveled to Brazil with the support of the Mongabay Special Reporting Initiative. Follow him on Twitter @bborrell.

More by Brendan Borrell

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe