ArticleMolecular ecology2013
Genomics and museum specimens.
Article in Molecular ecology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Molecular markers in keratins from Mysticeti whales for species identification of baleen in museum and archaeological collections.PloS one · 2017Article
- Targeted capture in evolutionary and ecological genomics.Molecular ecology · 2016Review
- Next-generation sampling: Pairing genomics with herbarium specimens provides species-level signal in Solidago (Asteraceae).Applications in plant sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nearly 25 years ago, Allan Wilson and colleagues isolated DNA sequences from museum specimens of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys panamintinus) and compared these sequences with those from freshly collected animals (Thomas et al. 1990). The museum specimens had been collected up to 78 years earlier, so the two samples provided a direct temporal comparison of patterns of genetic variation. This was not the first time DNA sequences had been isolated from preserved material, but it was the first time it had been carried out with a population sample. Population geneticists often try to make inferences about the influence of historical processes such as selection, drift, mutation and migration on patterns of genetic variation in the present. The work of Wilson and colleagues was important in part because it suggested a way in which population geneticists could actually study genetic change in natural populations through time, much the same way that experimentalists can do with artificial populations in the laboratory. Indeed, the work of Thomas et al. (1990) spawned dozens of studies in which museum specimens were used to compare historical and present-day genetic diversity (reviewed in Wandeler et al. 2007). All of these studies, however, were limited by the same fundamental problem: old DNA is degraded into short fragments. As a consequence, these studies mostly involved PCR amplification of short templates, usually short stretches of mitochondrial DNA or microsatellites. In this issue, Bi et al. (2013) report a breakthrough that should open the door to studies of genomic variation in museum specimens. They used target enrichment (exon capture) and next-generation (Illumina) sequencing to compare patterns of genetic variation in historic and present-day population samples of alpine chipmunks (Tamias alpinus) (Fig. 1). The historic samples came from specimens collected in 1915, so the temporal span of this comparison is nearly 100 years.
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.