Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30633410›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2019

Disentangling structural genomic and behavioural barriers in a sea of connectivity.

Julia M I Barth, David Villegas-Ríos, Carla Freitas, Even Moland, Bastiaan Star, Carl André, Halvor Knutsen, Ian Bradbury, Jan Dierking, Christoph Petereit and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing differences among elasmobranch nurseries to aid conservation based on a genomics framework.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Methods to estimate marine functional connectivity: A primer.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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
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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 8 countries.

Julia M I BarthCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5125-819X
David Villegas-RíosDepartment of Ecology and Marine Resources, Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, IMEDEA CSIC-UIB, Esporles, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5660-5322
Carla FreitasInstitute for Marine Research, Flødevigen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5676-0514
Even MolandInstitute for Marine Research, Flødevigen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6521-2659
Bastiaan StarCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0235-9810
Carl AndréDepartment of Marine Sciences - Tjärnö, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4404-7292
Halvor KnutsenCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ian BradburyScience Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8152-4943
Jan DierkingGEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4660-6919
Christoph PetereitGEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany.
David RightonCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft, UK.
Julian MetcalfeCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Lowestoft, UK.
Kjetill S JakobsenCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8861-5397
Esben M OlsenInstitute for Marine Research, Flødevigen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3807-7524
Sissel JentoftCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8707-531X
University of Oslo · NOUniversity of Agder · NOCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science · GBGEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel · DEFisheries and Oceans Canada · CAInstituto de Investigacións Mariñas · ESUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

Centre for Marine Evolutionary Biology at Göteborg UniversityMarie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme #625852RCN "Ecogenome project" 280453/E40Research Council of Norway (RCN) "The Aqua Genome Project" 221734/O30
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic divergence among populations arises through natural selection or drift and is counteracted by connectivity and gene flow. In sympatric populations, isolating mechanisms are thus needed to limit the homogenizing effects of gene flow to allow for adaptation and speciation. Chromosomal inversions act as an important mechanism maintaining isolating barriers, yet their role in sympatric populations and divergence with gene flow is not entirely understood. Here, we revisit the question of whether inversions play a role in the divergence of connected populations of the marine fish Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), by exploring a unique data set combining whole-genome sequencing data and behavioural data obtained with acoustic telemetry. Within a confined fjord environment, we find three genetically differentiated Atlantic cod types belonging to the oceanic North Sea population, the western Baltic population and a local fjord-type cod. Continuous behavioural tracking over 4 year revealed temporally stable sympatry of these types within the fjord. Despite overall weak genetic differentiation consistent with high levels of gene flow, we detected significant frequency shifts of three previously identified inversions, indicating an adaptive barrier to gene flow. In addition, behavioural data indicated that North Sea cod and individuals homozygous for the LG12 inversion had lower fitness in the fjord environment. However, North Sea and fjord-type cod also occupy different depths, possibly contributing to prezygotic reproductive isolation and representing a behavioural barrier to gene flow. Our results provide the first insights into a complex interplay of genomic and behavioural isolating barriers in Atlantic cod and establish a new model system towards an understanding of the role of genomic structural variants in adaptation and diversification.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosome InversionGadus morhuaGene FlowGenetic DriftGenetic FitnessGenetic VariationHomozygoteReproductive IsolationSelection, GeneticSympatryadaptationAtlantic codbehavioural traitschromosomal rearrangementsgene flowsympatric divergence

Identifiers

PMID30633410
PMCPMC6518941
OpenAlexW2909250929

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.