ArticlePLoS biology2017
A new explanation for unexpected evolution in body size.
Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex Ratio, Sexual Dimorphism, and Wing Geometric Morphometrics in Species of Trypoxylon Latreille, 1796 (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae).Neotropical entomology · 2023Article
- Balancing selection via life-history trade-offs maintains an inversion polymorphism in a seaweed fly.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Genome data uncover four synergistic key regulators for extremely small body size in horses.BMC genomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bigger is apparently frequently fitter, and body size is typically heritable, so why don't animals in wild populations evolve towards larger sizes? Different explanations have been proposed for this apparent "paradox of stasis." A new study of snow voles in the Swiss Alps finds higher survival in animals with larger body mass and heritability of body mass, but, surprisingly, a genetic decline in body mass is also indicated. The authors suggest a novel explanation for this observation: the appearance of positive phenotypic selection is driven by a confounding variable of the age at which a juvenile is measured, whereas the evolutionarily relevant selection actually acts negatively on mass via its association with development time. Thus, genes for larger mass are not actually "fitter" because they are associated with longer development times, and juvenile snow voles with longer development times run the risk of not completing development before the first winter snow. However, the genetic decline in body size is not apparent at the phenotypic level, presumably because of countervailing trends in environmental effects on the phenotype.
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.