Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37738291›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Scaphopoda is the sister taxon to Bivalvia: Evidence of ancient incomplete lineage sorting.

Hao Song, Yunan Wang, Haojing Shao, Zhuoqing Li, Pinli Hu, Meghan K Yap-Chiongco, Pu Shi, Tao Zhang, Cui Li, Yiguan Wang and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Uniqueness and predictability in evolution and the history of mollusks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  8. Incomplete lineage sorting shaped mixed traits during a colobine primate radiation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

14 authors.

Hao Song *Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2197-1562
Yunan Wang *Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9343-3064
Haojing Shao *Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Genome Analysis Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Zhuoqing Li *Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.
Pinli Hu *Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Genome Analysis Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen 518000, China.ORCID 0009-0004-1094-2285
Meghan K Yap-ChiongcoDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487.ORCID 0000-0003-4586-9212
Pu ShiInstitute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-8270
Tao ZhangInstitute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2534-6820
Cui LiInstitute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.
Yiguan WangInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0550-9511
Peizhen MaInstitute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.
Jakob VintherSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom.
Haiyan WangInstitute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6297-3591
Kevin M KocotDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487.ORCID 0000-0002-8673-2688

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1846174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The almost simultaneous emergence of major animal phyla during the early Cambrian shaped modern animal biodiversity. Reconstructing evolutionary relationships among such closely spaced branches in the animal tree of life has proven to be a major challenge, hindering understanding of early animal evolution and the fossil record. This is particularly true in the species-rich and highly varied Mollusca where dramatic inconsistency among paleontological, morphological, and molecular evidence has led to a long-standing debate about the group's phylogeny and the nature of dozens of enigmatic fossil taxa. A critical step needed to overcome this issue is to supplement available genomic data, which is plentiful for well-studied lineages, with genomes from rare but key lineages, such as Scaphopoda. Here, by presenting chromosome-level genomes from both extant scaphopod orders and leveraging complete genomes spanning Mollusca, we provide strong support for Scaphopoda as the sister taxon of Bivalvia, revitalizing the morphology-based Diasoma hypothesis originally proposed 50 years ago. Our molecular clock analysis confidently dates the split between Bivalvia and Scaphopoda at ~520 Ma, prompting a reinterpretation of controversial laterally compressed Early Cambrian fossils, including

Indexed as

BivalviaAnimalsBiodiversityCell MovementDietary SupplementsPhylogenyCambrian explosionincomplete lineage sortingmollusc fossilsmollusc phylogenyScaphopoda

Identifiers

PMID37738291
PMCPMC10556646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.