Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29495400›Full record

ReviewGenes2018

Delimiting Coalescence Genes (C-Genes) in Phylogenomic Data Sets.

Mark S Springer, John Gatesy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Mark S SpringerDepartment of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. springer@ucr.edu.
John GatesyDivision of Vertebrate Zoology and Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA. jgatesy@amnh.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

coalescence methods have emerged as a popular alternative for inferring species trees with large genomic datasets, because these methods explicitly account for incomplete lineage sorting. However, statistical consistency of summary coalescence methods is not guaranteed unless several model assumptions are true, including the critical assumption that recombination occurs freely among but not within coalescence genes (c-genes), which are the fundamental units of analysis for these methods. Each c-gene has a single branching history, and large sets of these independent gene histories should be the input for genome-scale coalescence estimates of phylogeny. By contrast, numerous studies have reported the results of coalescence analyses in which complete protein-coding sequences are treated as c-genes even though exons for these loci can span more than a megabase of DNA. Empirical estimates of recombination breakpoints suggest that c-genes may be much shorter, especially when large clades with many species are the focus of analysis. Although this idea has been challenged recently in the literature, the inverse relationship between c-gene size and increased taxon sampling in a dataset-the 'recombination ratchet'-is a fundamental property of c-genes. For taxonomic groups characterized by genes with long intron sequences, complete protein-coding sequences are likely not valid c-genes and are inappropriate units of analysis for summary coalescence methods unless they occur in recombination deserts that are devoid of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS). Finally, it has been argued that coalescence methods are robust when the no-recombination within loci assumption is violated, but recombination must matter at some scale because ILS, a by-product of recombination, is the raison d'etre for coalescence methods. That is, extensive recombination is required to yield the large number of independently segregating c-genes used to infer a species tree. If coalescent methods are powerful enough to infer the correct species tree for difficult phylogenetic problems in the anomaly zone, where concatenation is expected to fail because of ILS, then there should be a decreasing probability of inferring the correct species tree using longer loci with many intralocus recombination breakpoints (i.e., increased levels of concatenation).

Indexed as

coalescence genesphylogenomicsprotein-coding sequencesrecombination breakpointsrecombination ratchet

Identifiers

PMID29495400
PMCPMC5867844

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.