Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23965616›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2013

The timetable for allopolyploidy in flowering plants.

Donald A Levin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Has the Polyploid Wave Ebbed?Frontiers in plant science · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Donald A LevinSection of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78713, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur understanding of the processes and dynamics of allopolyploid speciation, the long-term consequences of ploidal change, and the genetic and chromosomal changes in new emerged allopolyploids has substantially increased during the past few decades. Yet we remain uncertain about the time since lineage divergence when two taxa are capable of spawning such entities. Indeed, the matter has seemed intractable. Knowledge of the window of opportunity for allopolyploid production is very important because it provides temporal insight into a key evolutionary process, and a temporal reference against which other modes of speciation may be measured. SCOPE: This Viewpoint paper reviews and integrates published information on the crossability of herbaceous species and the fertility of their hybrids in relation to species' divergence times. Despite limitations in methodology and sampling, the estimated times to hybrid sterility are somewhat congruent across disparate lineages. Whereas the waiting time for hybrid sterility is roughly 4-5 million years, the waiting time for cross-incompatibility is roughly 8-10 million years, sometimes considerably more. Strict allopolyploids may be formed in the intervening time window. The progenitors of several allopolyploids diverged between 4 and 6 million years before allopolyploid synthesis, as expected. This is the first study to propose a general temporal framework for strict allopolyploidy. This Viewpoint paper hopefully will stimulate interest in studying the tempo of speciation and the tempo of reproductive isolation in general.

Indexed as

PolyploidyMagnoliopsidaSelf-Incompatibility in Flowering PlantsTime FactorsAllopolyploidycross-incompatibilitydivergence timehybrid sterilitylife history, reproductive isolationS-locusspeciation

Identifiers

PMID23965616
PMCPMC3806526

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.