Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22140283›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary biology2010

Genome Size and Species Diversification.

Ken Kraaijeveld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Speciation through chromosomal fusion and fission in Lepidoptera.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Telomeric assemblies ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Genomic diversity and functional adaptation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Genomic C-Value Variation Analysis in Jujube (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Genome Size Variation inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A bird-like genome from a frog: Mechanisms of genome size reduction in the ornate burrowing frog,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Ken Kraaijeveld

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretically, there are reasons to believe that large genome size should favour speciation. Several major factors contributing to genome size, such as duplications and transposable element activity have been proposed to facilitate the formation of new species. However, it is also possible that small genome size promotes speciation. For example, selection for genome reduction may be resolved in different ways in incipient species, leading to incompatibilities. Mutations and chromosomal rearrangements may also be more stably inherited in smaller genomes. Here I review the following lines of empirical evidence bearing on this question: (i) Correlations between genome size and species richness of taxa are often negative. (ii) Fossil evidence in lungfish shows that the accumulation of DNA in the genomes of this group coincided with a reduction in species diversity. (iii) Estimates of speciation interval in mammals correlate positively with genome size. (iv) Genome reductions are inferred at the base of particular species radiations and genome expansions at the base of others. (v) Insect clades that have been increasing in diversity up to the present have smaller genomes than clades that have remained stable or have decreased in diversity. The general pattern emerging from these observations is that higher diversification rates are generally found in small-genome taxa. Since diversification rates are the net effect of speciation and extinction, large genomes may thus either constrain speciation rate, increase extinction rate, or both. I argue that some of the cited examples are unlikely to be explained by extinction alone.

Identifiers

PMID22140283
PMCPMC3227167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.