Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095363›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Proteomic similarity of the Littorinid snails in the evolutionary context.

Arina L Maltseva, Marina A Varfolomeeva, Arseniy A Lobov, Polina Tikanova, Marina Panova, Natalia A Mikhailova, Andrei I Granovitch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genetic and morphological variation of metacercariae ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2020
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Arina L Maltseva *Department of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-1973-4728
Marina A Varfolomeeva *Department of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-8486
Arseniy A LobovDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0930-1171
Polina TikanovaDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Marina PanovaDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Natalia A MikhailovaDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Andrei I GranovitchDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.
St Petersburg University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe introduction of DNA-based molecular markers made a revolution in biological systematics. However, in cases of very recent divergence events, the neutral divergence may be too slow, and the analysis of adaptive part of the genome is more informative to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of young species. The advantage of proteomics is its ability to reflect the biochemical machinery of life. It may help both to identify rapidly evolving genes and to interpret their functions.

methodsHere we applied a comparative gel-based proteomic analysis to several species from the gastropod family Littorinidae. Proteomes were clustered to assess differences related to species, geographic location, sex and body part, using data on presence/absence of proteins in samples and data on protein occurrence frequency in samples of different species. Cluster support was assessed using multiscale bootstrap resampling and the stability of clustering-using cluster-wise index of cluster stability. Taxon-specific protein markers were derived using IndVal method. Proteomic trees were compared to consensus phylogenetic tree (based on neutral genetic markers) using estimates of the Robinson-Foulds distance, the Fowlkes-Mallows index and cophenetic correlation.

resultsOverall, the DNA-based phylogenetic tree and the proteomic similarity tree had consistent topologies. Further, we observed some interesting deviations of the proteomic littorinid tree from the neutral expectations. (1) There were signs of molecular parallelism in two

Indexed as

Cryptic speciesEcological divergenceIndValLittorinidaeOutliersPhylogenetic markersPhylogenyProteomicsTaxonomyTaxon-specific proteomic markers

Identifiers

PMID32095363
PMCPMC7024583
OpenAlexW3006367319

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.