Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26286983›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

Reproduction, symbiosis, and the eukaryotic cell.

Peter Godfrey-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. 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. Article
  4. Evolutionary transitions in heritability and individuality.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  9. Viruses and mobile elements as drivers of evolutionary transitions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Review
  10. Symbiosis becoming permanent: Survival of the luckiest.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  11. Eukaryogenesis, how special really?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Review
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.

Peter Godfrey-SmithPhilosophy Program, City University of New York Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016; and History and Philosophy of Science Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia pgodfreysmith@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper develops a conceptual framework for addressing questions about reproduction, individuality, and the units of selection in symbiotic associations, with special attention to the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Three kinds of reproduction are distinguished, and a possible evolutionary sequence giving rise to a mitochondrion-containing eukaryotic cell from an endosymbiotic partnership is analyzed as a series of transitions between each of the three forms of reproduction. The sequence of changes seen in this "egalitarian" evolutionary transition is compared with those that apply in "fraternal" transitions, such as the evolution of multicellularity in animals.

Indexed as

ReproductionSymbiosisAnimalsBiological EvolutionEukaryotic CellsHumansMitochondriaModels, BiologicalSelection, GeneticSocial Behavioreukaryoteevolutionreproductionsymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID26286983
PMCPMC4547265

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.