Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23106701›Full record

ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2012

The genetic architecture of a complex ecological trait: host plant use in the specialist moth, Heliothis subflexa.

Sara J Oppenheim, Fred Gould, Keith R Hopper

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara J OppenheimDepartment of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA. saraoppenheim@gmail.com
Fred Gould
Keith R Hopper
North Carolina State University · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

PREDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESF31GM068991 · NIGMS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI OPPENHEIM, SARA J · 2003 to 2004
$55k
NIGMS NIH HHS F31 GM068991NIGMS NIH HHS GM068991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We used genetic mapping to examine the genetic architecture of differences in host plant use between two species of noctuid moths, Heliothis subflexa, a specialist on Physalis spp., and its close relative, the broad generalist H. virescens. We introgressed H. subflexa chromosomes into the H. virescens background and analyzed 1462 backcross insects. The effects of H. subflexa-origin chromosomes were small when measured as the percent variation explained in backcross populations (0.2-5%), but were larger when considered in relation to the interspecific difference explained (1.5-165%). Most significant chromosomes had effects on more than one trait, and their effects varied between years, sexes, and genetic backgrounds. Different chromosomes could produce similar phenotypes, suggesting that the same trait might be controlled by different chromosomes in different backcross populations. It appears that many loci of small effect contribute to the use of Physalis by H. subflexa. We hypothesize that behavioral changes may have paved the way for physiological adaptation to Physalis by the generalist ancestor of H. subflexa and H. virescens.

Indexed as

Hybridization, GeneticPhysalisAmplified Fragment Length Polymorphism AnalysisAnimalsChromosome MappingFeeding BehaviorFemaleFood ChainGenetic LinkageGenetic MarkersLarvaMaleMothsPhenotypeQuantitative Trait, HeritableGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23106701
PMCPMC3490447
OpenAlexW2125962020

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.