ArticleGenome biology and evolution2018
Assessing Genomic Admixture between Cryptic Plutella Moth Species following Secondary Contact.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The complete mitochondrial genome of Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) and phylogenetic relationships within the Yponomeutoidea superfamily.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recombination, admixture and genome instability shape the genomic landscape of Saccharomyces cerevisiae derived from spontaneous grape ferments.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- The complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2021Article
- Genome-wide analysis of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L., from Brassica crops and wild host plants reveals no genetic structure in Australia.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- An Insect Counteradaptation against Host Plant Defenses Evolved through Concerted Neofunctionalization.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryptic species are genetically distinct taxa without obvious variation in morphology and are occasionally discovered using molecular or sequence data sets of populations previously thought to be a single species. The world-wide Brassica pest, Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth), has been a problematic insect in Australia since 1882, yet a morphologically cryptic species with apparent endemism (P. australiana) was only recognized in 2013. Plutella xylostella and P. australiana are able to hybridize under laboratory conditions, and it was unknown whether introgression of adaptive traits could occur in the field to improve fitness and potentially increase pressure on agriculture. Phylogenetic reconstruction of 29 nuclear genomes confirmed P. xylostella and P. australiana are divergent, and molecular dating with 13 mitochondrial genes estimated a common Plutella ancestor 1.96 ± 0.175 Ma. Sympatric Australian populations and allopatric Hawaiian P. xylostella populations were used to test whether neutral or adaptive introgression had occurred between the two Australian species. We used three approaches to test for genomic admixture in empirical and simulated data sets including 1) the f3 statistic at the level of the population, 2) pairwise comparisons of Nei's absolute genetic divergence (dXY) between populations, and 3) changes in phylogenetic branch lengths between individuals across 50-kb genomic windows. These complementary approaches all supported reproductive isolation of the Plutella species in Australia, despite their ability to hybridize. Finally, we highlight the most divergent genomic regions between the two cryptic Plutella species and find they contain genes involved with processes including digestion, detoxification, and DNA binding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.