{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03491285112733863, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009541069239379564, 'mean_word_length': 4.926089703095388, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of six candidate DNA barcode loci for identification of five important invasive grasses in eastern Australia

Invasive grass weeds reduce farm productivity, threaten biodiversity, and increase weed control costs. Identification of invasive grasses from native grasses has generally relied on the morphological examination of grass floral material. DNA barcoding may provide an alternative means to identify co-occurring native and invasive grasses, particularly during early growth stages when floral characters are unavailable for analysis. However, there are no universal loci available for grass barcoding. We herein evaluated the utility of six candidate loci (atpF intron, matK, ndhK-ndhC, psbE—petL, ETS and ITS) for barcode identification of several economically important invasive grass species frequently found among native grasses in eastern Australia. We evaluated these loci in 66 specimens representing five invasive grass species (Chloris gayana, Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia hirta, Nassella neesiana, Nassella trichotoma) and seven native grass species. Our results indicated that, while no single locus can be universally used as a DNA barcode for distinguishing the grass species examined in this study, two plastid loci (atpF and matK) showed good distinguishing power to separate most of the taxa examined, and could be used as a dual locus to distinguish several of the invasive from the native species. Low PCR success rates were evidenced among two nuclear loci (ETS and ITS), and few species were amplified at these loci, however ETS was able to genetically distinguish the two important invasive Nassella species. Multiple loci analyses also suggested that ETS played a crucial role in allowing identification of the two Nassella species in the multiple loci combinations.

accuracy using rbcL. Wang, et al. (2014) [1] screened 18 loci for the possibility of using DNA barcoding technology to identify invasive weeds and native grasses (up to 29 grass species) collected from eastern Australia. Based on PCR reliability and polymorphism levels, they advocated the use of matK and two other cpDNA loci [ndhK-ndhC intergenic spacer (referred as ndhK) and psbE-petL intergenic spacer (referred to here as as psbE)] as preferred grass DNA barcode targets over rbcL and ITS.
Here, we evaluated the chloroplast and nuclear loci (ITS, matK, ndhk and psbE), which were recommended by previous studies, on five major invasive grasses (N. trichotoma, N. neesiana, E. curvula, H. hirtai, C. gayana) and several co-occurring native grasses. We also tested two new loci, atpF intron (referred as atpF) and external transcribed spacer (ETS), which were reported to be effective in the genetic diversity study of Lolium perenne and other related grass species [17], and the phylogenetic studies of Poa [18]. We hope the availability of robust DNA barcoding loci will help weeds abatement officers to identify the five invasive weeds at early growth stages, which is important to Australian biosecurity (including border entry points for quarantine purposes) and weed control agencies as early detection in bio-surveillance for weed control will ensure an early intervention by control agencies.

Sample collection
A total of 66 specimens representing five invasive grass species in Eastern Australia (Chloris gayana, Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia hirta, Nassella neesiana, Nassella trichotoma) and seven native grass species (Austrostipa densiflora, Anthosachne scabra, Microlaena stipoides, Poa sieberiana, Rytidosperma caespitosum, Rytidosperma pallidum and Themeda triandra) were collected from the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria in eastern Australia under the permit issued by Department of Primary Industry (Permit No. INT14/8307) (see S1 Table for collection information and GenBank accession numbers). The seven native grasses were selected for examination here, as each is morphologically similar to one or more of the invasive grasses and potentially affected by their presence in areas of Eastern Australia where they overlap. These samples included field sampled specimens (N = 62) and vouchered herbarium specimens from the Australian National Herbarium (N = 2) and the National Herbarium of Victoria (N = 2). Leaf samples (appropriately 0.3 cm 2 in size) were preserved in > 70% EtOh and stored at the Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute (NSW Department of Primary Industries) and allocated unique specimen identifiers (e.g. ww00001) for sample tracking. All specimen records and associated gene sequences have been submitted into the Barcode of Life Data systems (BOLD) [19].

DNA extraction, target loci PCR, and sequencing
In preparation for DNA extractions, leaf tissue (< 1 mg) of each specimen was incubated (55˚C) overnight in 280 μl of DXT tissue digest reagent (QIAGEN, Doncaster, Australia) with 1% added proteinase K (Sigma-Aldrich). Genomic DNA was isolated from specimen digestions using a Corbett Research 1820 X-tractor Gene robot and associated DX buffers (Qiagen, Doncaster, Australia).
Loci specific forward and reverse primers used in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplification are listed in (Table 1)  PCR products stained with SYBR 1 safe DNA Gel Stain (Invitrogen) were examined under UV light in a Bio-Rad Universal Hood II following electrophoresis through a 1.5% agarose gel, and in the presence of 1 kb size markers and negative controls. Successful PCR products were sequenced at the Brisbane, Queensland node of the Australian Genome Research Facility (AGRF).

Data analysis
Forward and reverse sequence chromatograms at each locus were assembled and checked for signal quality using SeqMan (DNA STAR package, DNAStar Inc., Madison, WI, USA). At each locus, specimen consensus sequences were exported into BioEdit [26] for alignment using ClustalW [27] with default parameters. The aligned sequences were also manually edited in BioEdit to remove primer reads.
DNA barcode gap analysis was determined at each locus by plotting maximum intraspecific distance (D intra ) against minimum nearest neighbour distance (D NN ). Intra and inter-specific pairwise genetic distances used in barcode gap analyses were generated at BOLD and adjusted by the Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) model of nucleotide evolution.
At each locus, the nearest neighbour minimum interspecific p-distances (D NN ) was plotted against maximum intraspecific p-distances (D intra ) to determine presence or absence of a DNA barcode gap among species (Fig 1).
Species monophyly was tested at each locus using both Neighbor-joining (NJ) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) tree construction methods. K2P pairwise distances used in NJ tree constructions were computed in MEGA 6.0 [28]. ML trees were constructed using PhyML 3.1 Table 1. Loci targeted for PCR using sourced primers. Forward (-F) and reverse (-R) primer directions indicated by suffix. Original primer sequences modified by addition of 17 bp vector M-13 5´tails (tail sequences not shown here, refer to Materials and methods).

Primer name Primer sequence 5'-3' Source
18S-R  [29], incorporating a GTR nucleotide substitution model (plus Gamma distribution). Bootstrap replication (N = 1000) was used to assess confidence of NJ clusters and ML clades. The same phylogenetic analyses were also performed on multi locus combinations (di, tri, tetra and penta) of the six loci to determine if any locus combination outperformed single loci for resolving species monophyly.

Sequence characteristics of the six loci
While only one primer set was tested for each of four loci (ETS, atpF, ndhK and psbE), two primer sets were applied to amplify the ITS and matK sequences across the 12 species (Table 1). PCR success rate varied across different loci and grass species (Table 2). atpF was the only locus that successfully amplified all tested grass species. High rates of PCR success were also apparent at matK and ndhK. ITS had the least PCR success, with only three of the twelve grass species (C. gayana, E. curvula and N. trichotoma) being successfully amplified at this locus ( Table 2). The aligned sequence matrix of ETS was 491 nucleotides (nt) in length with 314 parsimony informative sites and 325 variable sites (Table 3), which represents the highest percentage value of the parsimony informative or variable nucleotide sites against the total length (66% and 68% respectively). The shortest alignment (356 nt) was at ndhK, which also had the least amount of parsimony informative and variable sites against the total length (11% and 15%) respectively. DNA barcode gap minimum interspecific p-distances [represented as nearest neighbor distance (D NN )] and maximum intraspecific p-distances (D intra ) among the tested species across the six loci were presented in Table 4 and in Fig 1. ETS and ITS were the only loci to show evidence of a clear DNA barcode gap, as exemplified by the absence of overlap between D intra and D NN . In contrast these two measures overlapped at each of the remaining four cpDNA loci, indicating instances where more variation was present within particular species than between their nearest genetic neighbor species.
Among the six loci, ETS showed good distinguishing power to separate all targeted invasive grasses (except for E. curvula where it failed to amplify) as clear barcode gaps separating maximum intraspecific and minimum interspecific distances were identified between the invasive species ( Fig 1D). While the remaining loci differed in their abilities to separate different weeds species, they shared the same feature that they failed to distinguish two important invasive grasses N. neesiana and N. trichotoma (Fig 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E and 1F).

Monophyly tests of species based on phylogenetic trees
For psbE, the monophyly of two invasive grasses, H. hirta and E. curvula, were well supported (95% and 99% bootstrap support) by the NJ analysis. Although the genus Nassella was supported as monophyletic, species within the genus (N. neesiana and N. trichotoma) were paraphyletic. All four invasive grasses which amplified at this gene were clearly distinguished from a single native species (A. scabra) (Fig 2B). Similar results were obtained from the ML tree of psbE ( Fig 3B).  The higher PCR success rates in atpF (Table 2) made it possible to examine the distinguishing power of this locus across a wider range of grass species. Both NJ and ML trees of atpF supported the monophyly of three invasive species (C. gayana, E. curvula, H. hirta) and four native species (M. stipoides, A. scabra, T. triandra, P. Sieberiana), which means the majority of the examined taxa was distinguished by this locus. Although atpF failed to separate two invasive Nasella species (N. neesiana and N. trichotoma), it confirmed the monophyly of the Nassella genus and separated this genus from the native stipa species A. densiflora (Figs 2A and  3A). Similar results were obtained from the ndhK data (Figs 2E and 3E) but species coverage dropped slightly in the NJ and ML trees of ndhK (C. gayana and A. scabra were each represented by a single specimen, and T. triandra and P. sieberiana were not represented at all).
Similar to atpF, matK distinguished the invasive grasses of H. hirta and E. curvula from the tested native grasses (A. scabra, P. sieberiana, T. triandra, M. stipoides, R. pallidum and R. caespitosum). The monophyly of these native grasses were also confirmed except for the T. triandra, R. pallidum and R. caespitosum (Figs 2C and 3C). In addition, both NJ and ML trees of matK provided weak support to the monophyly of N. trichotoma and N. neesiana, and strong support for the separation of native stipa species (A. densiflora) from the two invasive Nassella species.
Two nuclear loci, ITS and ETS, were tested for their potential in distinguishing invasive grasses from native grasses in present study. While the PCR success rate for these two loci were relatively lower than that of the plasmid loci, the available sequence data from these two loci provided good distinguishing power in identifying different grass species. The NJ and ML trees of ITS clearly supported the monophyly of E. curvula and C. gayana whilst its counterparts of ETS provided strong support for the monophyly of N. neesiana, N. trichotoma, C. gayana and H. hirta (100% in both NJ and ML) (Figs 2D, 2F, 3D and 3F). The NJ and ML trees of ETS also separated the native stipa species (A. densiflora) from the invasive Nassella species with strong bootstrap support (100%).

Multiple loci analysis
Four ETS related two loci combinations (ETS-matK, ETS-ndhK, ETS-psbE and ETS-atpF) strongly confirmed the monophyly of N. neesiana and N. trichotoma, which is an improvement relative to the results of single locus (matK, ndhK, psbE and atpF). On the contrary, matK related two loci combinations (except for matK-psbE) remain weak in distinguishing N. neesiana from N. trichotoma, although some combinations (matK-atpF, matK-ndhK, matK-psbE) were effective in confirming the monophyly of E. curvula, H. hirta and several native grass species. Monophyly of E. curvula was confirmed by all ITS related two loci combinations except for ETS-ITS (Table 5) (Trees not show).

Discussion
In present study, we tested six loci for their utility as DNA barcode targets to distinguish five invasive grass species from seven native grasses which frequently co-occur in eastern Australia. Among these, matK is recommended as one of two core loci by CBOL [14] for plant DNA barcoding. Our results (DNA barcode gap analysis, NJ and ML phylogenetic analyses) indicated that matK was suitable for distinguishing invasive H. hirta and E. curvula from native grasses (M. stipoides, A. scabra, T. triandra, P. sieberiana), but provided no or weak support for distinguishing N. neesiana from N. trichotoma, which are two important invasive grasses.
Similar results were obtained from ndhK, but the length of this locus (356 bp) is shorter than the recommended DNA barcode length [30]. The relatively lower PCR success rate of The application of DNA barcoding technology in weeds science ndhK also limits its use as a general DNA barcode locus across the surveyed species. In contrast highest PCR success was achieved at atpF, and most of the examined taxa were distinguished (except for the two Nassella species) by this locus, indicating its potentials as a promising DNA barcode locus for the grasses of concern.
The remaining chloroplast locus, psbE, had longer sequence length (687 bp) and a high proportion (57.6%) of informative sites, but low PCR success rates across the examined species, which limits its utility as a general DNA barcode for grasses. As evidenced at other plastid loci, psbE provided no resolution in distinguishing N. neesiana from N. trichotoma. The application of DNA barcoding technology in weeds science Among the nuclear loci, ITS has been frequently reported as a potentially useful locus for plant DNA barcoding [31,32], including its use for identification of stipoid grasses [4]. However, we experienced difficulties in amplifying this locus across multiple grass species. Our previous study [1] reported 75% fungal contamination rates among sequenced PCR products when using non-specific and universal ITS primers (ITS 5aF-ITS4R). Similarly fungal contamination with ITS primers has also been reported by Hollingsworth et al. [33]. However, in the present study, we have successfully eliminated the fungal contamination using the new primer set of ITS 26SE-ITS S3 together with modified PCR cycling conditions described previously [18]. Nevertheless, PCR and sequencing success rates using this new primer set remained low (average 20.5%), and the limited number of retrieved sequences failed to distinguish between N. neesiana from N. trichotoma, despite its success in distinguishing E. curvula and C. gayana.
The other nuclear locus, ETS, outperformed ITS in many ways, including the relatively higher PCR and sequencing success rate, and the power to distinguish three invasive grass species (N. neesiana, N. trichotoma and H. hirta). This locus could be a promising marker for grass DNA barcoding if more robust primers are designed for this locus to increase its PCR success rate (particularly for E. curvula).
Results of our PCR screening and DNA barcode gap analyses indicated no single locus can be universally used as a DNA barcode for distinguishing the grass species examined here. Loci examined either failed to amplify a portion of species or to resolve genetic limits among the species. Greater species resolution was in some cases obtained when combined loci analyses were employed. For example, matK confirmed the monophyly of multiple grass species except for N. neesiana and N. trichotoma, whilst ETS confirmed the monophyly of N. neesiana and N. trichotoma but failed to amplify E. curvula. When the DNA sequences of these two loci were concatenated and jointly analyzed, species monophyly of N. trichotoma, N. neesiana and A. densiflora were confirmed (Table 5). We noticed that the monophyly of N. neesiana and N. trichotoma were confirmed by all ETS related loci combinations (except for those combinations consisting both ETS and ITS), but were not confirmed by other loci combinations without the component of ETS. This suggests that ETS plays a crucial role in allowing identification of the two Nassella species in the multiple loci combinations, and could be a useful 2 nd locus in combined analyses to improve accuracy of invasive species identifications. In summary, the present studies evaluated the distinguishing power of six loci (ETS, ITS, atpF, matK, ndhK and psbE) for DNA barcoding of five invasive weeds and seven native grasses, which co-occur in eastern Australia. Among the four plastid loci, atpF and matK showed higher PCR rates and better distinguishing power than the remaining loci, making them suitable for further consideration as promising DNA barcodes of the targeted grass species. Among the two nuclear loci, ETS showed better potential as a DNA barcode for the separation of two invasive Nassella species. We conclude that a dual locus DNA barcode combination of atpF and matK may be used to genetically distinguish several prominent invasive grass species present in eastern Australia from co-occurring native grasses often mistaken for the invasive types. Furthermore, use of the ETS locus as a DNA barcode for genetic separation and identification of the two Nassella spp. may provide some application in future screening of those two WONs species; arguably further optimization of this locus may also allow it to be used for DNA barcode assay and identification of a broader assemblage of native and invasive grass species in Australia.