Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19920849›Full record

ReviewHeredity2009

Islands of speciation or mirages in the desert? Examining the role of restricted recombination in maintaining species.

M A F Noor, S M Bennett

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 172 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
172citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

172 citing papers in PubMed, 394 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The hybrid history of zebrafish.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M A F NoorBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. noor@duke.edu
S M Bennett
Duke University · US

Funding

Fine-scale recombination, variation, divergence, and codon bias in DrosophilaR01GM086445 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KLIMAN, RICHARD M, NOOR, MOHAMED A · 2009 to 2012
$1.4M
Genetics of speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscuraR01GM076051 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NOOR, MOHAMED A · 2007 to 2011
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM076051NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM086445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, many studies documented high genetic divergence between closely related species in genomic regions experiencing restricted recombination in hybrids, such as within chromosomal rearrangements or areas adjacent to centromeres. Such regions have been called 'islands of speciation' because of their presumed role in maintaining the integrity of species despite gene flow elsewhere in the genome. Here, we review alternative explanations for such patterns. Segregation of ancestral variation or artifacts of nucleotide diversity within species can readily lead to higher F(ST) in regions of restricted recombination than other parts of the genome, even in the complete absence of interspecies gene flow, and thereby cause investigators to erroneously conclude that islands of speciation exist. We conclude by discussing strengths and weaknesses of various means for testing the role of restricted recombination in maintaining species.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationRecombination, GeneticAnimalsCentromereEvolution, MolecularGene Flow

Identifiers

PMID19920849
PMCPMC2809014
OpenAlexW1964227412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.