Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34436287›Full record

ReviewMarine drugs2021

A Soft Spot for Chemistry-Current Taxonomic and Evolutionary Implications of Sponge Secondary Metabolite Distribution.

Adrian Galitz, Yoichi Nakao, Peter J Schupp, Gert Wörheide, Dirk Erpenbeck

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Marine drugs, 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
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Short macrocyclic peptides in sponge genomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Terpene biosynthesis in marine sponge animals.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Marine drugs · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Adrian GalitzDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7989-6257
Yoichi NakaoGraduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5929-2392
Peter J SchuppInstitute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl-von-Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26111 Wilhelmshaven, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-2751
Gert WörheideDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6380-7421
Dirk ErpenbeckDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology & Geobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2716-1085
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEBavarian State Collection of Zoology · DECarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DEWaseda University · JP

Funding

LMUMentoring program of the LMUexcellent initiative. n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine sponges are the most prolific marine sources for discovery of novel bioactive compounds. Sponge secondary metabolites are sought-after for their potential in pharmaceutical applications, and in the past, they were also used as taxonomic markers alongside the difficult and homoplasy-prone sponge morphology for species delineation (chemotaxonomy). The understanding of phylogenetic distribution and distinctiveness of metabolites to sponge lineages is pivotal to reveal pathways and evolution of compound production in sponges. This benefits the discovery rate and yield of bioprospecting for novel marine natural products by identifying lineages with high potential of being new sources of valuable sponge compounds. In this review, we summarize the current biochemical data on sponges and compare the metabolite distribution against a sponge phylogeny. We assess compound specificity to lineages, potential convergences, and suitability as diagnostic phylogenetic markers. Our study finds compound distribution corroborating current (molecular) phylogenetic hypotheses, which include yet unaccepted polyphyly of several demosponge orders and families. Likewise, several compounds and compound groups display a high degree of lineage specificity, which suggests homologous biosynthetic pathways among their taxa, which identifies yet unstudied species of this lineage as promising bioprospecting targets.

Indexed as

AnimalsAquatic OrganismsHumansPhylogenyPhytotherapyPoriferabioactivitychemotaxonomymarine spongenatural product evolutionsecondary metabolite

Identifiers

PMID34436287
PMCPMC8398655
OpenAlexW3188223815

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.