Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29496748›Full record

ArticleGenetics2018

The Limits to Parapatric Speciation II: Strengthening a Preexisting Genetic Barrier to Gene Flow in Parapatry.

Alexandre Blanckaert, Joachim Hermisson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Highly Replicated Evolution of Parapatric Ecotypes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Towards the completion of speciation: the evolution of reproductive isolation beyond the first barriers.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Alexandre BlanckaertDepartment of Mathematics, University of Vienna, 1090, Austria ablanckaert@igc.gulbenkian.pt.ORCID 0000-0003-2735-7491
Joachim HermissonDepartment of Mathematics, University of Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7476-9283

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By encompassing the whole continuum between allopatric and sympatric scenarios, parapatric speciation includes many potential scenarios for the evolution of new species. Here, we investigate how a genetic barrier to gene flow, that relies on a single postzygotic genetic incompatibility, may further evolve under ongoing migration. We consider a continent island model with three loci involved in pairwise Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities (DMIs). Using an analytic approach, we derive the conditions for invasion of a new mutation and its consequences for the strength and stability of the initial genetic barrier. Our results show that the accumulation of genetic incompatibilities in the presence of gene flow is under strong selective constraints. In particular, preexisting incompatibilities do not always facilitate the invasion of further barrier genes. If new mutations do invade, they will often weaken or destroy the barrier rather than strengthening it. We conclude that migration is highly effective at disrupting the so-called "snowball effect", the accelerated accumulation of DMIs that has been described for allopatric populations en route to reproductive isolation.

Indexed as

Gene FlowGenetic SpeciationHeterozygoteModels, GeneticAdaptation, BiologicalAlgorithmsHaploidyHaplotypesQuantitative Trait LociallopatricDobzhansky–Mullergene flowgenetic incompatibilitiesmodelparapatricspeciation

Identifiers

PMID29496748
PMCPMC5937195

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.