Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962145›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2016

Matching loci surveyed to questions asked in phylogeography.

Chih-Ming Hung, Sergei V Drovetski, Robert M Zink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

3 authors.

Chih-Ming HungBiodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan ymwur1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-6370
Sergei V DrovetskiDivision of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Robert M ZinkBell Museum and Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has long been used for assessing genetic variation within and between populations, its workhorse role in phylogeography has been criticized owing to its single-locus nature. The only choice for testing mtDNA results is to survey nuclear loci, which brings into contrast the difference in locus effective size and coalescence times. Thus, it remains unclear how erroneous mtDNA-based estimates of species history might be, especially for evolutionary events in the recent past. To test the robustness of mtDNA and nuclear sequences in phylogeography, we provide one of the largest paired comparisons of summary statistics and demographic parameters estimated from mitochondrial, five Z-linked and 10 autosomal genes of 30 avian species co-distributed in the Caucasus and Europe. The results suggest that mtDNA is robust in estimating inter-population divergence but not in intra-population diversity, which is sensitive to population size change. Here, we provide empirical evidence showing that mtDNA was more likely to detect population divergence than any other single locus owing to its smaller Ne and thus faster coalescent time. Therefore, at least in birds, numerous studies that have based their inferences of phylogeographic patterns solely on mtDNA should not be readily dismissed.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAnimalsCell NucleusDNADNA, MitochondrialEuropeIntronsPhylogeographyPopulation DensitySongbirdsSympatryDNADNA, Mitochondrialcoalescencemitochondrial DNAnuclear genesphylogeographyZ-linked

Identifiers

PMID26962145
PMCPMC4810844

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.