ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2013
Are there species smaller than 1 mm?
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Green armoured tardigrades (Echiniscidae: Viridiscus), including a new species from the Southern Nearctic, exemplify problems with tardigrade variability research.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Considering the Role of Adaptive Evolution in Models of the Ocean and Climate System.Journal of advances in modeling earth systems · 2019Article
- Dome patterns in pelagic size spectra reveal strong trophic cascades.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Demographic noise can reverse the direction of deterministic selection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- A critique of Rossberg et al.: Noise obscures the genetic signal of meiobiotal ecospecies in ecogenomic datasets.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2014Article
- Current noise-removal methods can create false signals in ecogenomic data.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advance in genetic sequencing technologies has provided an unprecedented amount of data on the biodiversity of meiofauna. It was hoped that these data would allow the identification and counting of species, distinguished as tight clusters of similar genomes. Surprisingly, this appears not to be the case. Here, we begin a theoretical discussion of this phenomenon, drawing on an individual-based ecological model to inform our arguments. The determining factor in the emergence (or not) of distinguishable genetic clusters in the model is the product of population size with mutation rate-a measure of the adaptability of the population as a whole. This result suggests that indeed one should not expect to observe clearly distinguishable species groupings in data gathered from ultrasequencing of meiofauna.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.