Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29668710›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Chloroplast variation is incongruent with classification of the Australian bloodwood eucalypts (genus Corymbia, family Myrtaceae).

Tanja M Schuster, Sabrina D Setaro, Josquin F G Tibbits, Erin L Batty, Rachael M Fowler, Todd G B McLay, Stephen Wilcox, Peter K Ades, Michael J Bayly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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. The complete chloroplast genome sequence ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2018
    Article
  16. Annotated plastome of the temperate woody vineMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2018
    Article
  17. 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

9 authors.

Tanja M SchusterSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Sabrina D SetaroDepartment of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC,United States of America.
Josquin F G TibbitsDepartment of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, AgriBiosciences Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Erin L BattySchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Rachael M FowlerSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Todd G B McLaySchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Stephen WilcoxGenomics Hub, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, 1G Royal Parade, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Peter K AdesSchool of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michael J BaylySchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6836-5493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous molecular phylogenetic analyses have resolved the Australian bloodwood eucalypt genus Corymbia (~100 species) as either monophyletic or paraphyletic with respect to Angophora (9-10 species). Here we assess relationships of Corymbia and Angophora using a large dataset of chloroplast DNA sequences (121,016 base pairs; from 90 accessions representing 55 Corymbia and 8 Angophora species, plus 33 accessions of related genera), skimmed from high throughput sequencing of genomic DNA, and compare results with new analyses of nuclear ITS sequences (119 accessions) from previous studies. Maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony analyses of cpDNA resolve well supported trees with most nodes having >95% bootstrap support. These trees strongly reject monophyly of Corymbia, its two subgenera (Corymbia and Blakella), most taxonomic sections (Abbreviatae, Maculatae, Naviculares, Septentrionales), and several species. ITS trees weakly indicate paraphyly of Corymbia (bootstrap support <50% for maximum likelihood, and 71% for parsimony), but are highly incongruent with the cpDNA analyses, in that they support monophyly of both subgenera and some taxonomic sections of Corymbia. The striking incongruence between cpDNA trees and both morphological taxonomy and ITS trees is attributed largely to chloroplast introgression between taxa, because of geographic sharing of chloroplast clades across taxonomic groups. Such introgression has been widely inferred in studies of the related genus Eucalyptus. This is the first report of its likely prevalence in Corymbia and Angophora, but this is consistent with previous morphological inferences of hybridisation between species. Our findings (based on continent-wide sampling) highlight a need for more focussed studies to assess the extent of hybridisation and introgression in the evolutionary history of these genera, and that critical testing of the classification of Corymbia and Angophora requires additional sequence data from nuclear genomes.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAustraliaDNA, ChloroplastDNA, RibosomalMyrtaceaePhylogenyPhylogeographyPlant LeavesSequence Analysis, DNADNA, ChloroplastDNA, Ribosomal

Identifiers

PMID29668710
PMCPMC5905893

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.