Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33975486›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2021

Parthenogenesis is self-destructive for scaled reptiles.

Matthew Owen Moreira, Carlos Fonseca, Danny Rojas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Loss, persistence and reversal of phenotypic traits.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Sexual conflict as a constraint on asexual reproduction: an empirical review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Evolutionary and Genomic Diversity of True Polyploidy in Tetrapods.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  13. 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

3 authors.

Matthew Owen MoreiraCESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Carlos FonsecaCESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Danny RojasDepartment of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali, Cali, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Parthenogenesis is rare in nature. With 39 described true parthenogens, scaled reptiles (Squamata) are the only vertebrates that evolved this reproductive strategy. Parthenogenesis is ecologically advantageous in the short term, but the young age and rarity of parthenogenetic species indicate it is less advantageous in the long term. This suggests parthenogenesis is self-destructive: it arises often but is lost due to increased extinction rates, high rates of reversal or both. However, this role of parthenogenesis as a self-destructive trait remains unknown. We used a phylogeny of Squamata (5388 species), tree metrics, null simulations and macroevolutionary scenarios of trait diversification to address the factors that best explain the rarity of parthenogenetic species. We show that parthenogenesis can be considered as self-destructive, with high extinction rates mainly responsible for its rarity in nature. Since these parthenogenetic species occur, this trait should be ecologically relevant in the short term.

Indexed as

LizardsParthenogenesisAnimalsPhenotypePhylogenyReproductionasexualextinctionparthenogeneticself-destructionSquamata

Identifiers

PMID33975486
PMCPMC8113917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.