Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35506576›Full record

ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2022

Comparison of methodological approaches to the study of young sex chromosomes: A case study in Poecilia.

Iulia Darolti, Pedro Almeida, Alison E Wright, Judith E Mank

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Genome assemblies forFrontiers in genetics · 2024
    Article
  6. Parsimony and Poeciliid Sex Chromosome Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Iulia DaroltiDepartment of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Pedro AlmeidaDepartment of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK.
Alison E WrightEcology and Evolutionary Biology, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Judith E MankDepartment of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2450-513X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of sex chromosome systems at early stages of divergence are key to understanding the initial process and underlying causes of recombination suppression. However, identifying signatures of divergence in homomorphic sex chromosomes can be challenging due to high levels of sequence similarity between the X and the Y. Variations in methodological precision and underlying data can make all the difference between detecting subtle divergence patterns or missing them entirely. Recent efforts to test for X-Y sequence differentiation in the guppy have led to contradictory results. Here, we apply different analytical methodologies to the same data set to test for the accuracy of different approaches in identifying patterns of sex chromosome divergence in the guppy. Our comparative analysis reveals that the most substantial source of variation in the results of the different analyses lies in the reference genome used. Analyses using custom-made genome assemblies for the focal population or species successfully recover a signal of divergence across different methodological approaches. By contrast, using the distantly related Xiphophorus reference genome results in variable patterns, due to both sequence evolution and structural variations on the sex chromosomes between the guppy and Xiphophorus. Changes in mapping and filtering parameters can additionally introduce noise and obscure the signal. Our results illustrate how analytical differences can alter perceived results and we highlight best practices for the study of nascent sex chromosomes.

Indexed as

CyprinodontiformesPoeciliaAnimalsSex Chromosomesbest practicesgenomicshomomorphic sex chromosomesreplicationType 2 error

Identifiers

PMID35506576
PMCPMC10084049

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.