Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17132051›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2006

Widespread discordance of gene trees with species tree in Drosophila: evidence for incomplete lineage sorting.

Daniel A Pollard, Venky N Iyer, Alan M Moses, Michael B Eisen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

160 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Evolution ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Adaptive radiation of theEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Phylogeny ofInsects · 2023
    Article
  16. Phylogenomic comparative methods: Accurate evolutionary inferences in the presence of gene tree discordance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel A PollardGraduate Group in Biophysics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Venky N Iyer
Alan M Moses
Michael B Eisen

Funding

Modeling the Evolution and Function of Drosophila cis-Regulatory ModulesR01HG002779 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI EISEN, MICHAEL BRUCE · 2003 to 2012
$5.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002779NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG002779
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationship of the now fully sequenced species Drosophila erecta and D. yakuba with respect to the D. melanogaster species complex has been a subject of controversy. All three possible groupings of the species have been reported in the past, though recent multi-gene studies suggest that D. erecta and D. yakuba are sister species. Using the whole genomes of each of these species as well as the four other fully sequenced species in the subgenus Sophophora, we set out to investigate the placement of D. erecta and D. yakuba in the D. melanogaster species group and to understand the cause of the past incongruence. Though we find that the phylogeny grouping D. erecta and D. yakuba together is the best supported, we also find widespread incongruence in nucleotide and amino acid substitutions, insertions and deletions, and gene trees. The time inferred to span the two key speciation events is short enough that under the coalescent model, the incongruence could be the result of incomplete lineage sorting. Consistent with the lineage-sorting hypothesis, substitutions supporting the same tree were spatially clustered. Support for the different trees was found to be linked to recombination such that adjacent genes support the same tree most often in regions of low recombination and substitutions supporting the same tree are most enriched roughly on the same scale as linkage disequilibrium, also consistent with lineage sorting. The incongruence was found to be statistically significant and robust to model and species choice. No systematic biases were found. We conclude that phylogenetic incongruence in the D. melanogaster species complex is the result, at least in part, of incomplete lineage sorting. Incomplete lineage sorting will likely cause phylogenetic incongruence in many comparative genomics datasets. Methods to infer the correct species tree, the history of every base in the genome, and comparative methods that control for and/or utilize this information will be valuable advancements for the field of comparative genomics.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationPhylogenyAnimalsBase SequenceCluster AnalysisDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterEvolution, MolecularGenes, InsectLikelihood FunctionsModels, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID17132051
PMCPMC1626107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.