Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29416954›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

A 250 plastome phylogeny of the grass family (Poaceae): topological support under different data partitions.

Jeffery M Saarela, Sean V Burke, William P Wysocki, Matthew D Barrett, Lynn G Clark, Joseph M Craine, Paul M Peterson, Robert J Soreng, Maria S Vorontsova, Melvin R Duvall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Chloroplast genomes of nineFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. The enigmatic tropical alpine flora on the African sky islands is young, disturbed, and unsaturated.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Jeffery M SaarelaBeaty Centre for Species Discovery and Botany Section, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1790-4332
Sean V BurkePlant Molecular and Bioinformatics Center, Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA.
William P WysockiCenter for Data Intensive Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Matthew D BarrettBotanic Gardens and Parks Authority, Kings Park and Botanic Garden, West Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2926-4291
Lynn G ClarkDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Joseph M CraineJonah Ventures, Manhattan, KS, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6561-3244
Paul M PetersonDepartment of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9405-5528
Robert J SorengDepartment of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8358-4915
Maria S VorontsovaComparative Plant & Fungal Biology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0899-1120
Melvin R DuvallPlant Molecular and Bioinformatics Center, Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The systematics of grasses has advanced through applications of plastome phylogenomics, although studies have been largely limited to subfamilies or other subgroups of Poaceae. Here we present a plastome phylogenomic analysis of 250 complete plastomes (179 genera) sampled from 44 of the 52 tribes of Poaceae. Plastome sequences were determined from high throughput sequencing libraries and the assemblies represent over 28.7 Mbases of sequence data. Phylogenetic signal was characterized in 14 partitions, including (1) complete plastomes; (2) protein coding regions; (3) noncoding regions; and (4) three loci commonly used in single and multi-gene studies of grasses. Each of the four main partitions was further refined, alternatively including or excluding positively selected codons and also the gaps introduced by the alignment. All 76 protein coding plastome loci were found to be predominantly under purifying selection, but specific codons were found to be under positive selection in 65 loci. The loci that have been widely used in multi-gene phylogenetic studies had among the highest proportions of positively selected codons, suggesting caution in the interpretation of these earlier results. Plastome phylogenomic analyses confirmed the backbone topology for Poaceae with maximum bootstrap support (BP). Among the 14 analyses, 82 clades out of 309 resolved were maximally supported in all trees. Analyses of newly sequenced plastomes were in agreement with current classifications. Five of seven partitions in which alignment gaps were removed retrieved Panicoideae as sister to the remaining PACMAD subfamilies. Alternative topologies were recovered in trees from partitions that included alignment gaps. This suggests that ambiguities in aligning these uncertain regions might introduce a false signal. Resolution of these and other critical branch points in the phylogeny of Poaceae will help to better understand the selective forces that drove the radiation of the BOP and PACMAD clades comprising more than 99.9% of grass diversity.

Indexed as

AristidoideaeClassificationGrassesIncongruencePanicoideaePhylogenomicsPlastomePositive selectionPurifying selectionSystematics

Identifiers

PMID29416954
PMCPMC5798404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.