Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34836945›Full record

ReviewNature communications2021

The evolution of cheating in viruses.

Asher Leeks, Stuart A West, Melanie Ghoul

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Behavioural ecology in the twenty-first century.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Open questions in the social lives of viruses.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2023
    Review
  20. 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.

Asher LeeksDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK. asherleeks@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1175-7610
Stuart A WestDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2152-3153
Melanie GhoulDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011224/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of many viruses depends upon cooperative interactions between viral genomes. However, whenever cooperation occurs, there is the potential for 'cheats' to exploit that cooperation. We suggest that: (1) the biology of viruses makes viral cooperation particularly susceptible to cheating; (2) cheats are common across a wide range of viruses, including viral entities that are already well studied, such as defective interfering genomes, and satellite viruses. Consequently, the evolutionary theory of cheating could help us understand and manipulate viral dynamics, while viruses also offer new opportunities to study the evolution of cheating.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenome, ViralHost Microbial InteractionsMolecular MimicryViruses

Identifiers

PMID34836945
PMCPMC8635385

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.