ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2019
Ongoing hybridization obscures phylogenetic relationships in the Drosophila subquinaria species complex.
Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Genomics of the Testacea Group of Drosophila Reveals Introgression and Variation in Chromosome Size and Structure.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- An experimental test of the evolutionary consequences of sympatry in Drosophila subquinaria.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2024Article
- Recurrent but Short-Lived Duplications of Centromeric Proteins in Holocentric Caenorhabditis Species.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- The Floral Signals of the Inconspicuous OrchidBiology · 2022Article
- The rates of introgression and barriers to genetic exchange between hybridizing species: sex chromosomes vs autosomes.Genetics · 2021Article
- The importance of intrinsic postzygotic barriers throughout the speciation process.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inferring evolutionary relationships among recently diverged lineages is necessary to understand how isolating barriers produce independent lineages. Here, we investigate the phylogenetic relationships between three incompletely isolated and closely related mushroom-feeding Drosophila species. These species form the Drosophila subquinaria species complex and consist of one Eurasian species (D. transversa) and two widespread North American species (D. subquinaria and D. recens) that are sympatric in central Canada. Although patterns of pre- and post-mating isolation among these species are well characterized, previous work on their phylogenetic relationships is limited and conflicting. In this study, we generated a multi-locus data set of 29 loci from across the genome sequenced in a population sample from each species, and then, we inferred species relationships and patterns of introgression. We find strong statistical support that D. subquinaria is paraphyletic, showing that samples from the geographic region sympatric with D. recens are most closely related to D. recens, whereas samples from the geographic region allopatric with D. recens are most closely related to D. transversa. We present several lines of evidence that both incomplete lineage sorting and gene flow are causing phylogenetic discordance. We suggest that ongoing gene flow primarily from D. recens into D. subquinaria in the sympatric part of their ranges causes phylogenetic uncertainty in the evolutionary history of these species. Our results highlight how population genetic data can be used to disentangle the sources of phylogenetic discordance among closely related species.
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.