ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2016
Experimental macroevolution.
Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2016. 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.
- Microbiota of Cheese Ecosystems: A Perspective on Cheesemaking.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Natural Whey Starter Used in the Production of Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano PDO Cheeses: A Complex Microbial Community.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Paleolimnology and resurrection ecology: The future of reconstructing the past.Evolutionary applications · 2018Review
- Experimental Evolution of Escherichia coli Harboring an Ancient Translation Protein.Journal of molecular evolution · 2017Article
- Proceedings B 2016: the year in review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Different Evolutionary Paths to Complexity for Small and Large Populations of Digital Organisms.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The convergence of several disparate research programmes raises the possibility that the long-term evolutionary processes of innovation and radiation may become amenable to laboratory experimentation. Ancestors might be resurrected directly from naturally stored propagules or tissues, or indirectly from the expression of ancestral genes in contemporary genomes. New kinds of organisms might be evolved through artificial selection of major developmental genes. Adaptive radiation can be studied by mimicking major ecological transitions in the laboratory. All of these possibilities are subject to severe quantitative and qualitative limitations. In some cases, however, laboratory experiments may be capable of illuminating the processes responsible for the evolution of new kinds of organisms.
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.