Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29540564›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2018

Adaptive introgression: a plant perspective.

Adriana Suarez-Gonzalez, Christian Lexer, Quentin C B Cronk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 149 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

89 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

3 authors.

Adriana Suarez-GonzalezDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Christian LexerDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Quentin C B CronkDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada quentin.cronk@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4027-7368

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introgression is emerging as an important source of novel genetic variation, alongside standing variation and mutation. It is adaptive when such introgressed alleles are maintained by natural selection. Recently, there has been an explosion in the number of studies on adaptive introgression. In this review, we take a plant perspective centred on four lines of evidence: (i) introgression, (ii) selection, (iii) phenotype and (iv) fitness. While advances in genomics have contributed to our understanding of introgression and porous species boundaries (task 1), and the detection of signatures of selection in introgression (task 2), the investigation of adaptive introgression critically requires links to phenotypic variation and fitness (tasks 3 and 4). We also discuss the conservation implications of adaptive introgression in the face of climate change. Adaptive introgression is particularly important in rapidly changing environments, when standing genetic variation and mutation alone may only offer limited potential for adaptation. We conclude that clarifying the magnitude and fitness effects of introgression with improved statistical techniques, coupled with phenotypic evidence, has great potential for conservation and management efforts.

Indexed as

Gene FlowGenetic FitnessPhenotypeSelection, GeneticAdaptation, BiologicalPlantsadaptive introgressionclimate changehybridizationnatural selectionphenotypic variationspecies boundaries

Identifiers

PMID29540564
PMCPMC5897607

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.