Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746545›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

Skimming genomes for systematics and DNA barcodes of corals.

Andrea M Quattrini, Luke J McCartin, Erin E Easton, Jeremy Horowitz, Herman H Wirshing, Hailey Bowers, Kenneth Mitchell, María Del P González-García, Makiri Sei, Catherine S McFadden and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  10. The complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  11. Glow in the D-ARK: a new bioluminescent species ofRoyal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Andrea M QuattriniDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-3055
Luke J McCartinDepartment of Biological Sciences Lehigh University Bethlehem Pennsylvania USA.
Erin E EastonSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Port Isabel Texas USA.
Jeremy HorowitzDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.
Herman H WirshingDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.
Hailey BowersDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.
Kenneth MitchellDepartment of Biology Harvey Mudd College Claremont California USA.
María Del P González-GarcíaDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.
Makiri SeiDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.
Catherine S McFaddenDepartment of Biology Harvey Mudd College Claremont California USA.
Santiago HerreraDepartment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington DC USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous genomic methods developed over the past two decades have enabled the discovery and extraction of orthologous loci to help resolve phylogenetic relationships across various taxa and scales. Genome skimming (or low-coverage genome sequencing) is a promising method to not only extract high-copy loci but also 100s to 1000s of phylogenetically informative nuclear loci (e.g., ultraconserved elements [UCEs] and exons) from contemporary and museum samples. The subphylum Anthozoa, including important ecosystem engineers (e.g., stony corals, black corals, anemones, and octocorals) in the marine environment, is in critical need of phylogenetic resolution and thus might benefit from a genome-skimming approach. We conducted genome skimming on 242 anthozoan corals collected from 1886 to 2022. Using existing target-capture baitsets, we bioinformatically obtained UCEs and exons from the genome-skimming data and incorporated them with data from previously published target-capture studies. The mean number of UCE and exon loci extracted from the genome skimming data was 1837 ± 662 SD for octocorals and 1379 ± 476 SD loci for hexacorals. Phylogenetic relationships were well resolved within each class. A mean of 1422 ± 720 loci was obtained from the historical specimens, with 1253 loci recovered from the oldest specimen collected in 1886. We also obtained partial to whole mitogenomes and nuclear rRNA genes from >95% of samples. Bioinformatically pulling UCEs, exons, mitochondrial genomes, and nuclear rRNA genes from genome skimming data is a viable and low-cost option for phylogenetic studies. This approach can be used to review and support taxonomic revisions and reconstruct evolutionary histories, including historical museum and type specimens.

Indexed as

AnthozoaeDNAmuseomicstarget‐captureUCE

Identifiers

PMID38746545
PMCPMC11091489

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.