ArticleGenome biology and evolution2015
Determining the Position of Storks on the Phylogenetic Tree of Waterbirds by Retroposon Insertion Analysis.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2015. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nearly complete late Eocene skull from the North Pacific elucidates the cranial morphology and affinities of the penguin-like Plotopteridae.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2025Article
- Cytotaxonomy and Molecular Analyses ofGenes · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Phylogenetic Conflict in Bears Identified by Automated Discovery of Transposable Element Insertions in Low-Coverage Genomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite many studies on avian phylogenetics in recent decades that used morphology, mitochondrial genomes, and/or nuclear genes, the phylogenetic positions of several birds (e.g., storks) remain unsettled. In addition to the aforementioned approaches, analysis of retroposon insertions, which are nearly homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers, has also been used in avian phylogenetics. However, the first step in the analysis of retroposon insertions, that is, isolation of retroposons from genomic libraries, is a costly and time-consuming procedure. Therefore, we developed a high-throughput and cost-effective protocol to collect retroposon insertion information based on next-generation sequencing technology, which we call here the STRONG (Screening of Transposons Obtained by Next Generation Sequencing) method, and applied it to 3 waterbird species, for which we identified 35,470 loci containing chicken repeat 1 retroposons (CR1). Our analysis of the presence/absence of 30 CR1 insertions demonstrated the intra- and interordinal phylogenetic relationships in the waterbird assemblage, namely 1) Loons diverged first among the waterbirds, 2) penguins (Sphenisciformes) and petrels (Procellariiformes) diverged next, and 3) among the remaining families of waterbirds traditionally classified in Ciconiiformes/Pelecaniformes, storks (Ciconiidae) diverged first. Furthermore, our genome-scale, in silico retroposon analysis based on published genome data uncovered a complex divergence history among pelican, heron, and ibis lineages, presumably involving ancient interspecies hybridization between the heron and ibis lineages. Thus, our retroposon-based waterbird phylogeny and the established phylogenetic position of storks will help to understand the evolutionary processes of aquatic adaptation and related morphological convergent evolution.
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.