ArticleScientific reports2022
Mito-nuclear coevolution and phylogenetic artifacts: the case of bivalve mollusks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weak but Repeated Patterns of Co-Introgression of Nuclear OXPHOS Genes and Mitochondrial DNA in Iberian Wall Lizards.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Morphological Divergence Without Genetic Differentiation in Widely Distributed ChineseBiology · 2026Article
- The mitogenome of a swimming-behavior file shell reveals the phylogenetic relationships of Limida (Bivalvia: Pteriomorphia).Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Glacial Disturbance History Upon the Genetic Diversity ofEcology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mito-nuclear phylogenetic discordance in Bivalvia is well known. In particular, the monophyly of Amarsipobranchia (Heterodonta + Pteriomorphia), retrieved from mitochondrial markers, contrasts with the monophyly of Heteroconchia (Heterodonta + Palaeoheterodonta), retrieved from nuclear markers. However, since oxidative phosphorylation nuclear markers support the Amarsipobranchia hypothesis instead of the Heteroconchia one, interacting subunits of the mitochondrial complexes ought to share the same phylogenetic signal notwithstanding the genomic source, which is different from the signal obtained from other nuclear markers. This may be a clue of coevolution between nuclear and mitochondrial genes. In this work we inferred the phylogenetic signal from mitochondrial and nuclear oxidative phosphorylation markers exploiting different phylogenetic approaches and added two more datasets for comparison: genes of the glycolytic pathway and genes related to the biogenesis of regulative small noncoding RNAs. All trees inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear subunits of the mitochondrial complexes support the monophyly of Amarsipobranchia, regardless of the phylogenetic pipeline. However, not every single marker agrees with this topology: this is clearly visible in nuclear subunits that do not directly interact with the mitochondrial counterparts. Overall, our data support the hypothesis of a coevolution between nuclear and mitochondrial genes for the oxidative phosphorylation. Moreover, we suggest a relationship between mitochondrial topology and different nucleotide composition between clades, which could be associated to the highly variable gene arrangement in Bivalvia.
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.