Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23404314›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2012

Deep sympatric mtDNA divergence in the autumnal moth (Epirrita autumnata).

Kjersti S Kvie, Silje Hogner, Leif Aarvik, Jan T Lifjeld, Arild Johnsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. From writing to reading the encyclopedia of life.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Kjersti S KvieNatural History Museum, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1172, Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway ; Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science P.O. Box 8146 Dep, N-0033, Oslo, Norway.
Silje Hogner
Leif Aarvik
Jan T Lifjeld
Arild Johnsen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep sympatric intraspecific divergence in mtDNA may reflect cryptic species or formerly distinct lineages in the process of remerging. Preliminary results from DNA barcoding of Scandinavian butterflies and moths showed high intraspecific sequence variation in the autumnal moth, Epirrita autumnata. In this study, specimens from different localities in Norway and some samples from Finland and Scotland, with two congeneric species as outgroups, were sequenced with mitochondrial and nuclear markers to resolve the discrepancy found between mtDNA divergence and present species-level taxonomy. We found five COI sub-clades within the E. autumnata complex, most of which were sympatric and with little geographic structure. Nuclear markers (ITS2 and Wingless) showed little variation and gave no indications that E. autumnata comprises more than one species. The samples were screened with primers for Wolbachia outer surface gene (wsp) and 12% of the samples tested positive. Two Wolbachia strains were associated with different mtDNA sub-clades within E. autumnata, which may indicate indirect selection/selective sweeps on haplotypes. Our results demonstrate that deep mtDNA divergences are not synonymous with cryptic speciation and this has important implications for the use of mtDNA in species delimitation, like in DNA barcoding.

Indexed as

DNA barcodingEpirrita autumnatamtDNAnDNAselective sweepWolbachia

Identifiers

PMID23404314
PMCPMC3568849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.