Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35403214›Full record

ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2022

Phylogenomic analysis does not support a classic but controversial hypothesis of progenitor-derivative origins for the serpentine endemic Clarkia franciscana.

Shelley A Sianta, Kathleen M Kay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genomics of plant speciation.Plant communications · 2023
    Review
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

2 authors.

Shelley A SiantaDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, 95060.ORCID 0000-0003-1041-228X
Kathleen M KayDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, 95060.ORCID 0000-0001-8858-110X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Budding speciation involves isolation of marginal populations at the periphery of a species range and is thought to be a prominent mode of speciation in organisms with low dispersal and/or strong local adaptation among populations. Budding speciation is typically evidenced by abutting, asymmetric ranges of ecologically divergent sister species and low genetic diversity in putative budded species. Yet these indirect patterns may be unreliable, instead caused by postspeciation processes such as range or demographic shifts. Nested phylogenetic relationships provide the most conclusive evidence of budding speciation. A putative case of budding speciation in the serpentine endemic Clarkia franciscana and two closely related widespread congeners was studied by Harlan Lewis, Peter Raven, Leslie Gottlieb, and others over a 20-year period, yet the origin of C. franciscana remains controversial. Here, we reinvestigate this system with phylogenomic analyses to determine whether C. franciscana is a recently derived budded species, phylogenetically nested within one of the other two putative progenitor species. In contrast to the hypothesized pattern of relatedness among the three Clarkia species, we find no evidence for recent budding speciation. Instead, the data suggest the three species diverged simultaneously. We urge caution in using contemporary range patterns to infer geographic modes of speciation.

Indexed as

ClarkiaDolphinsAnimalsGenetic SpeciationPhylogenybudding speciationClarkiaincomplete lineage sortingphylogenomicsrapid divergenceserpentine

Identifiers

PMID35403214
PMCPMC9322428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.