ArticlePeerJ2017
Evolution of developmental sequences in lepidosaurs.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embryonic Development and Cranial Ossification Sequence in TwoLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Embryonic development of the skull in a parthenogenetic lizard, the mourning gecko (Lepidodactylus lugubris).Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- Auriculocondylar syndrome 2 results from the dominant-negative action of PLCB4 variants.Disease models & mechanisms · 2022Article
- Embryology of the naso-palatal complex in Gekkota based on detailed 3D analysis in Lepidodactylus lugubris and Eublepharis macularius.Journal of anatomy · 2021Article
- Article
- Development of the squamate naso-palatal complex: detailed 3D analysis of the vomeronasal organ and nasal cavity in the brown anoleFrontiers in zoology · 2020Article
- Noise and biases in genomic data may underlie radically different hypotheses for the position of Iguania within Squamata.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLepidosaurs, a group including rhynchocephalians and squamates, are one of the major clades of extant vertebrates. Although there has been extensive phylogenetic work on this clade, its interrelationships are a matter of debate. Morphological and molecular data suggest very different relationships within squamates. Despite this, relatively few studies have assessed the utility of other types of data for inferring squamate phylogeny.
methodsWe used developmental sequences of 20 events in 29 species of lepidosaurs. These sequences were analysed using event-pairing and continuous analysis. They were transformed into cladistic characters and analysed in TNT. Ancestral state reconstructions were performed on two main phylogenetic hypotheses of squamates (morphological and molecular).
resultsCladistic analyses conducted using characters generated by these methods do not resemble any previously published phylogeny. Ancestral state reconstructions are equally consistent with both morphological and molecular hypotheses of squamate phylogeny. Only several inferred heterochronic events are common to all methods and phylogenies. DISCUSSION: Results of the cladistic analyses, and the fact that reconstructions of heterochronic events show more similarities between certain methods rather than phylogenetic hypotheses, suggest that phylogenetic signal is at best weak in the studied developmental events. Possibly the developmental sequences analysed here evolve too quickly to recover deep divergences within Squamata.
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.