Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21139633›Full record

ReviewHeredity2011

Applications of next generation sequencing in molecular ecology of non-model organisms.

R Ekblom, J Galindo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 354 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
354citing papers in PubMed
–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

354 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Wildlife Trade and Genetic Basis of Disease Susceptibility: A Review.International journal of immunogenetics · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Complete mitochondrial genome of the yellow-lined snapper,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  16. Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

294 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

2 authors.

R EkblomDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK. robert.ekblom@ebc.uu.se
J Galindo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As most biologists are probably aware, technological advances in molecular biology during the last few years have opened up possibilities to rapidly generate large-scale sequencing data from non-model organisms at a reasonable cost. In an era when virtually any study organism can 'go genomic', it is worthwhile to review how this may impact molecular ecology. The first studies to put the next generation sequencing (NGS) to the test in ecologically well-characterized species without previous genome information were published in 2007 and the beginning of 2008. Since then several studies have followed in their footsteps, and a large number are undoubtedly under way. This review focuses on how NGS has been, and can be, applied to ecological, population genetic and conservation genetic studies of non-model species, in which there is no (or very limited) genomic resources. Our aim is to draw attention to the various possibilities that are opening up using the new technologies, but we also highlight some of the pitfalls and drawbacks with these methods. We will try to provide a snapshot of the current state of the art for this rapidly advancing and expanding field of research and give some likely directions for future developments.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticEcologyGene Expression ProfilingGenomeGenomicsSequence Analysis, DNASequence Analysis, RNA

Identifiers

PMID21139633
PMCPMC3186121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.