ArticleCladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society2004
Phylogeny of the Brachytheciaceae (Bryophyta) based on morphology and sequence level data.
Article in Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Phylogenetic Insights from a NovelPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Phylogeny-based comparative methods question the adaptive nature of sporophytic specializations in mosses.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brachytheciaceae is often considered a taxonomically difficult group of mosses. For example, morphological variation has led to difficulty in generic delimitation. We used DNA sequence data (chloroplast psbT-H and trnL-F and nuclear ITS2) together with morphology (63 characters) to examine the relationships within this family. The combined unaligned length of the DNA sequences used in the phylogenetic analyses varied between 1277 and 1343 bp. For phylogeny reconstruction we performed direct optimization, as implemented in POY. Analyses were performed with three different gap costs and the morphological data partition was weighted both: (1) equal to gap cost, and (2) with a weight of one. The utility of sensitivity analysis has recently been cast into doubt; hence in this study it was performed only to explore the effects of weighting on homology statements and topologies and to enable more detailed comparisons between earlier studies utilizing the direct optimization method. The wide sequence length variation of non-coding ITS2 sequences resulted in character optimizations (i.e., "alignments") of very different lengths when various gap costs were applied. Despite this variation, the topologies of equally parsimonious trees remained fairly stable. The inclusion of several outgroups, instead of only one, was observed to increase the congruence between data sets and to slightly increase the resolution. An inversion event in the 9 bp loop region in the chloroplast psbT-N spacer in mosses has been postulated to include only uninformative variation, thus possibly negatively impacting the phylogeny reconstruction. Despite this inversion, its variation within Brachytheciaceae was clearly congruent with information from other sources, but inclusion of these 9 bp in the analysis had only a minor effect on the phylogenetic results. In the most parsimonious topology, which was obtained with equal weighting of all data, Meteoriaceae and Brachytheciaceae were resolved as monophyletic sister groups, which had recently been suggested based on a few shared morphological characters. Our study revealed some new generic relationships within the Brachytheciaceae, which are discussed in light of the morphological characters traditionally used for generic delimitation.
Identifiers
34892928What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.