Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28256726›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2018

Covariation and phenotypic integration in chemical communication displays: biosynthetic constraints and eco-evolutionary implications.

Robert R Junker, Jonas Kuppler, Luisa Amo, James D Blande, Renee M Borges, Nicole M van Dam, Marcel Dicke, Stefan Dötterl, Bodil K Ehlers, Florian Etl and 30 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Protein-lipid Association in Lizard Chemical Signals.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

40 authors.

Robert R JunkerDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Jonas KupplerDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Luisa AmoDepartment of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), NL-6700, EH Wageningen, the Netherlands.
James D BlandeDepartment of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
Renee M BorgesCentre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India.
Nicole M van DamGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig/Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Marcel DickeLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Stefan DötterlDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Bodil K EhlersDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600, Silkeborg, Denmark.
Florian EtlDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Jonathan GershenzonDepartment of Biochemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
Robert GlinwoodDepartment of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, S750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Rieta GolsLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Astrid T GrootInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Martin HeilDepartamento de Ingeniería Genética, CINVESTAV - Irapuato, Irapuato, CP 36821, México.
Mathias HoffmeisterDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Jarmo K HolopainenDepartment of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
Stefan JarauInstitute for Neurobiology, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 10/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Lena JohnInstitute for Neurobiology, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 10/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Andre KesslerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Jette T KnudsenDeptartment of Biology, Lund University, SE 223 62, Lund, Sweden.
Christian KostMax Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Research Group Experimental Ecology and Evolution, 07745, Jena, Germany.
Anne-Amélie C Larue-KonticDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Sara Diana LeonhardtDepartment of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Würzburg University, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
Dani Lucas-BarbosaLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Cassie J MajeticDepartment of Biology, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Florian MenzelInstitute of Zoology, University of Mainz, 55128, Mainz, Germany.
Amy L ParachnowitschPlant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 75236, Sweden.
Rémy S PasquetDepartment of ECOBIO, IRD, 44 Bd de Dunkerque, 13572, Marseille Cedex 02, France.
Erik H PoelmanLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Robert A RagusoDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Joachim RutherInstitute of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Florian P SchiestlDepartment of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, University of Zürich, Zollikerstrasse 107, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland.
Thomas SchmittDepartment of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Würzburg University, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
Dorothea ThollDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.
Sybille B UnsickerDepartment of Biochemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
Niels VerhulstLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Marcel E VisserDepartment of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), NL-6700, EH Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Berhane T WeldegergisLaboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Tobias G KöllnerDepartment of Biochemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft JU 2856/1-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft JU 2856/2-2Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, GermanyMax Planck Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical communication is ubiquitous. The identification of conserved structural elements in visual and acoustic communication is well established, but comparable information on chemical communication displays (CCDs) is lacking. We assessed the phenotypic integration of CCDs in a meta-analysis to characterize patterns of covariation in CCDs and identified functional or biosynthetically constrained modules. Poorly integrated plant CCDs (i.e. low covariation between scent compounds) support the notion that plants often utilize one or few key compounds to repel antagonists or to attract pollinators and enemies of herbivores. Animal CCDs (mostly insect pheromones) were usually more integrated than those of plants (i.e. stronger covariation), suggesting that animals communicate via fixed proportions among compounds. Both plant and animal CCDs were composed of modules, which are groups of strongly covarying compounds. Biosynthetic similarity of compounds revealed biosynthetic constraints in the covariation patterns of plant CCDs. We provide a novel perspective on chemical communication and a basis for future investigations on structural properties of CCDs. This will facilitate identifying modules and biosynthetic constraints that may affect the outcome of selection and thus provide a predictive framework for evolutionary trajectories of CCDs in plants and animals.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionBiosynthetic PathwaysAnimalsPhenotypeVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compoundsbiosynthetic constraintschemical communicationcorrelation network analysisfloral scentsphenotypic integrationvegetative scents

Identifiers

PMID28256726

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.