Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33443110›Full record

ArticlemBio2020

Heidi Mavengere, Kathleen Mattox, Marcus M Teixeira, Victoria E Sepúlveda, Oscar M Gomez, Orville Hernandez, Juan McEwen, Daniel R Matute

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Telomeric assemblies ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Genetic Diversity of Human Fungal Pathogens.Current clinical microbiology reports · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. A monograph ofStudies in mycology · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. One Century of Study: What We Learned aboutJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors.

Heidi MavengereBiology Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Kathleen MattoxBiology Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Marcus M TeixeiraNúcleo de Medicina Tropical, Faculdade de Medicina, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
Victoria E SepúlvedaDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2085-9667
Oscar M GomezCellular and Molecular Biology Unit, Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas, Medellín, Colombia.
Orville HernandezCellular and Molecular Biology Unit, Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas, Medellín, Colombia.
Juan McEwenCellular and Molecular Biology Unit, Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas, Medellín, Colombia.
Daniel R MatuteBiology Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA dmatute@email.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7597-602X

Funding

The prevalence of genetic introgression in speciationR01GM121750 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MATUTE, DANIEL · 2017 to 2021
$1.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fungus

Indexed as

Gene FlowGenome, FungalEvolution, MolecularParacoccidioidesPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNAWhole Genome Sequencinggene exchangehidden Markov model (HMM)introgressionspeciation

Identifiers

PMID33443110
PMCPMC8534288

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.