Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29855482›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Mitochondrial DNA is unsuitable to test for isolation by distance.

Peter R Teske, Tirupathi Rao Golla, Jonathan Sandoval-Castillo, Arsalan Emami-Khoyi, Carl D van der Lingen, Sophie von der Heyden, Brent Chiazzari, Bettine Jansen van Vuuren, Luciano B Beheregaray

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Oceanic dispersal barriers in a holoplanktonic gastropod.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter R TeskeCentre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa. pteske101@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2838-7804
Tirupathi Rao GollaCentre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa.
Jonathan Sandoval-CastilloMolecular Ecology Lab, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Arsalan Emami-KhoyiCentre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa.
Carl D van der LingenBranch: Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Vlaeberg, 8012, South Africa.
Sophie von der HeydenEvolutionary Genomics Group, Department of Botany and Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, 7602, Matieland, South Africa.
Brent ChiazzariSchool of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, Durban, 4001, South Africa.
Bettine Jansen van VuurenCentre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa.
Luciano B BeheregarayMolecular Ecology Lab, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
University of Johannesburg · ZAFlinders University · AUStellenbosch University · ZAUniversity of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tests for isolation by distance (IBD) are the most commonly used method of assessing spatial genetic structure. Many studies have exclusively used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences to test for IBD, but this marker is often in conflict with multilocus markers. Here, we report a review of the literature on IBD, with the aims of determining (a) whether significant IBD is primarily a result of lumping spatially discrete populations, and (b) whether microsatellite datasets are more likely to detect IBD when mtDNA does not. We also provide empirical data from four species in which mtDNA failed to detect IBD by comparing these with microsatellite and SNP data. Our results confirm that IBD is mostly found when distinct regional populations are pooled, and this trend disappears when each is analysed separately. Discrepancies between markers were found in almost half of the studies reviewed, and microsatellites were more likely to detect IBD when mtDNA did not. Our empirical data rejected the lack of IBD in the four species studied, and support for IBD was particularly strong for the SNP data. We conclude that mtDNA sequence data are often not suitable to test for IBD, and can be misleading about species' true dispersal potential. The observed failure of mtDNA to reliably detect IBD, in addition to being a single-locus marker, is likely a result of a selection-driven reduction in genetic diversity obscuring spatial genetic differentiation.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAnimalsDNA, MitochondrialFishesGastropodaMicrosatellite RepeatsPhylogeographyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideDNA, Mitochondrial

Identifiers

PMID29855482
PMCPMC5981212
OpenAlexW2805131209

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.