Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37484464›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023

The role of recombination landscape in species hybridisation and speciation.

Edgar L Y Wong, Dmitry A Filatov

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Edgar L Y WongDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dmitry A FilatovDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre · DEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P009808/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is now well recognised that closely related species can hybridize and exchange genetic material, which may promote or oppose adaptation and speciation. In some cases, interspecific hybridisation is very common, making it surprising that species identity is preserved despite active gene exchange. The genomes of most eukaryotic species are highly heterogeneous with regard to gene density, abundance of repetitive DNA, chromatin compactisation etc, which can make certain genomic regions more prone or more resistant to introgression of genetic material from other species. Heterogeneity in local recombination rate underpins many of the observed patterns across the genome (e.g. actively recombining regions are typically gene rich and depleted for repetitive DNA) and it can strongly affect the permeability of genomic regions to interspecific introgression. The larger the region lacking recombination, the higher the chance for the presence of species incompatibility gene(s) in that region, making the entire non- or rarely recombining block impermeable to interspecific introgression. Large plant genomes tend to have highly heterogeneous recombination landscape, with recombination frequently occurring at the ends of the chromosomes and central regions lacking recombination. In this paper we review the relationship between recombination and introgression in plants and argue that large rarely recombining regions likely play a major role in preserving species identity in actively hybridising plant species.

Indexed as

evolutiongene flowhybridisationintrogressionrecombinationspeciation

Identifiers

PMID37484464
PMCPMC10361763
OpenAlexW4383313641

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.