Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37227001›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2023

Effect of Different Types of Sequence Data on Palaeognath Phylogeny.

Naoko Takezaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Functional Analysis of Oligoadenylate Synthetase in the Emu (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Naoko TakezakiLaboratory of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Palaeognathae consists of five groups of extant species: flighted tinamous (1) and four flightless groups: kiwi (2), cassowaries and emu (3), rheas (4), and ostriches (5). Molecular studies supported the groupings of extinct moas with tinamous and elephant birds with kiwi as well as ostriches as the group that diverged first among the five groups. However, phylogenetic relationships among the five groups are still controversial. Previous studies showed extensive heterogeneity in estimated gene tree topologies from conserved nonexonic elements, introns, and ultraconserved elements. Using the noncoding loci together with protein-coding loci, this study investigated the factors that affected gene tree estimation error and the relationships among the five groups. Using closely related ostrich rather than distantly related chicken as the outgroup, concatenated and gene tree-based approaches supported rheas as the group that diverged first among groups (1)-(4). Whereas gene tree estimation error increased using loci with low sequence divergence and short length, topological bias in estimated trees occurred using loci with high sequence divergence and/or nucleotide composition bias and heterogeneity, which more occurred in trees estimated from coding loci than noncoding loci. Regarding the relationships of (1)-(4), the site patterns by parsimony criterion appeared less susceptible to the bias than tree construction assuming stationary time-homogeneous model and suggested the clustering of kiwi and cassowaries and emu the most likely with ∼40% support rather than the clustering of kiwi and rheas and that of kiwi and tinamous with 30% support each.

Indexed as

PalaeognathaeStruthioniformesAnimalsChickensIntronsPhylogenycoding sequencegene treenoncoding sequencenucleotide compositionoutgroupRY-coding

Identifiers

PMID37227001
PMCPMC10262969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.