ArticlePeerJ2015
The Phanerozoic diversification of silica-cycling testate amoebae and its possible links to changes in terrestrial ecosystems.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testate amoebae (Arcellinida, Amoebozoa) community diversity in New England bogs and fens assessed through lineage-specific amplicon sequencing.European journal of protistology · 2024Article
- Shallow-marine testate amoebae with internal structures from the Lower Devonian of China.iScience · 2023Article
- Niche Conservatism Drives the Elevational Diversity Gradient in Major Groups of Free-Living Soil Unicellular Eukaryotes.Microbial ecology · 2022Article
- Biospeleothems Formed by Fungal Activity During the Early Holocene in the "Salar de Uyuni".Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Are microbes fundamentally different than macroorganisms? Convergence and a possible case for neutral phenotypic evolution in testate amoeba (Amoebozoa: Arcellinida).Royal Society open science · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The terrestrial cycling of Si is thought to have a large influence on the terrestrial and marine primary production, as well as the coupled biogeochemical cycles of Si and C. Biomineralization of silica is widespread among terrestrial eukaryotes such as plants, soil diatoms, freshwater sponges, silicifying flagellates and testate amoebae. Two major groups of testate (shelled) amoebae, arcellinids and euglyphids, produce their own silica particles to construct shells. The two are unrelated phylogenetically and acquired biomineralizing capabilities independently. Hyalosphenids, a group within arcellinids, are predators of euglyphids. We demonstrate that hyalosphenids can construct shells using silica scales mineralized by the euglyphids. Parsimony analyses of the current hyalosphenid phylogeny indicate that the ability to "steal" euglyphid scales is most likely ancestral in hyalosphenids, implying that euglyphids should be older than hyalosphenids. However, exactly when euglyphids arose is uncertain. Current fossil record contains unambiguous euglyphid fossils that are as old as 50 million years, but older fossils are scarce and difficult to interpret. Poor taxon sampling of euglyphids has also prevented the development of molecular clocks. Here, we present a novel molecular clock reconstruction for arcellinids and consider the uncertainties due to various previously used calibration points. The new molecular clock puts the origin of hyalosphenids in the early Carboniferous (∼370 mya). Notably, this estimate coincides with the widespread colonization of land by Si-accumulating plants, suggesting possible links between the evolution of Arcellinid testate amoebae and the expansion of terrestrial habitats rich in organic matter and bioavailable Si.
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.