ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2022
How Phylogenetics Can Elucidate the Chemical Ecology of Poison Frogs and Their Arthropod Prey.
Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The sequestration by neotropical poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) of an amazing array of defensive alkaloids from oribatid soil mites has motivated an exciting research theme in chemical ecology, but the details of mite-to-frog transfer remain hidden. To address this, McGugan et al. (2016, Journal of Chemical Ecology 42:537-551) used the little devil poison frog (Oophaga sylvatica) and attempted to simultaneously characterize the prey mite alkaloids, the predator skin alkaloids, and identify the mites using DNA sequences. Heethoff et al. (2016, Journal of Chemical Ecology 42:841-844) argued that none of the mite families to which McGugan et al. allocated the prey was thought to possess alkaloids. Heethoff et al. concluded from analyses including additional sequences that the mite species were unlikely to be close relatives of the defended mites. We re-examine this by applying more appropriate phylogenetic methods to broader and denser taxonomic samples of mite sequences using the same gene (CO1). We found, over trees based on CO1 datasets, only weak support (except in one case) for branches critical to connecting the evolution of alkaloid sequestration with the phylogeny of mites. In contrast, a well-supported analysis of the 18S ribosomal gene suggests at least two independent evolutionary origins of oribatid alkaloids. We point out impediments in the promising research agenda, namely a paucity of genetic, chemical, and taxonomic information, and suggest how phylogenetics can elucidate at a broader level the evolution of chemical defense in prey arthropods, sequestration by predators, and the impact of alkaloids on higher-order trophic interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.