ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2013
Positive selection in glycolysis among Australasian stick insects.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple hybridization events and repeated evolution of homoeologue expression bias in parthenogenetic, polyploid New Zealand stick insects.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Key questions on the evolution and biogeography of New Zealand alpine insects.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2024Review
- Divergent Gene Expression Following Duplication of Meiotic Genes in the Stick Insect Clitarchus hookeri.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Substitutions in the Glycogenin-1 Gene Are Associated with the Evolution of Endothermy in Sharks and Tunas.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Article
- Article
- Single origin of the Mascarene stick insects: ancient radiation on sunken islands?BMC evolutionary biology · 2015Article
- Parallel molecular routes to cold adaptation in eight genera of New Zealand stick insects.Scientific reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe glycolytic pathway is central to cellular energy production. Selection on individual enzymes within glycolysis, particularly phosphoglucose isomerase (Pgi), has been associated with metabolic performance in numerous organisms. Nonetheless, how whole energy-producing pathways evolve to allow organisms to thrive in different environments and adopt new lifestyles remains little explored. The Lanceocercata radiation of Australasian stick insects includes transitions from tropical to temperate climates, lowland to alpine habitats, and winged to wingless forms. This permits a broad investigation to determine which steps within glycolysis and what sites within enzymes are the targets of positive selection. To address these questions we obtained transcript sequences from seven core glycolysis enzymes, including two Pgi paralogues, from 29 Lanceocercata species.
resultsUsing maximum likelihood methods a signature of positive selection was inferred in two core glycolysis enzymes. Pgi and Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (Gaphd) genes both encode enzymes linking glycolysis to the pentose phosphate pathway. Positive selection among Pgi paralogues and orthologues predominately targets amino acids with residues exposed to the protein's surface, where changes in physical properties may alter enzyme performance.
conclusionOur results suggest that, for Lancerocercata stick insects, adaptation to new stressful lifestyles requires a balance between maintaining cellular energy production, efficiently exploiting different energy storage pools and compensating for stress-induced oxidative damage.
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.