Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39364691›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Comparative analysis of amphibian genomes: An emerging resource for basic and applied research.

Tiffany A Kosch, Andrew J Crawford, Rachel Lockridge Mueller, Katharina C Wollenberg Valero, Megan L Power, Ariel Rodríguez, Lauren A O'Connell, Neil D Young, Lee F Skerratt

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly of Dybowski's Frog (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Journal of genomics · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A draft genome assembly for the dart-poison frogGigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Tiffany A KoschFaculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5158-5748
Andrew J CrawfordDepartamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3153-6898
Rachel Lockridge MuellerDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Katharina C Wollenberg ValeroSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8858-1804
Megan L PowerSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7402-3254
Ariel RodríguezInstitute of Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine of Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Lauren A O'ConnellDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2706-4077
Neil D YoungFaculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8756-229X
Lee F SkerrattFaculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3471-7512

Funding

Australian Research Council FT190100462Australian Research Council LP200301370European Research Council 101044202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amphibians are the most threatened group of vertebrates and are in dire need of conservation intervention to ensure their continued survival. They exhibit unique features including a high diversity of reproductive strategies, permeable and specialized skin capable of producing toxins and antimicrobial compounds, multiple genetic mechanisms of sex determination and in some lineages, the ability to regenerate limbs and organs. Although genomic approaches would shed light on these unique traits and aid conservation, sequencing and assembly of amphibian genomes has lagged behind other taxa due to their comparatively large genome sizes. Fortunately, the development of long-read sequencing technologies and initiatives has led to a recent burst of new amphibian genome assemblies. Although growing, the field of amphibian genomics suffers from the lack of annotation resources, tools for working with challenging genomes and lack of high-quality assemblies in multiple clades of amphibians. Here, we analyse 51 publicly available amphibian genomes to evaluate their usefulness for functional genomics research. We report considerable variation in genome assembly quality and completeness and report some of the highest transposable element and repeat contents of any vertebrate. Additionally, we detected an association between transposable element content and climatic variables. Our analysis provides evidence of conserved genome synteny despite the long divergence times of this group, but we also highlight inconsistencies in chromosome naming and orientation across genome assemblies. We discuss sequencing gaps in the phylogeny and suggest key targets for future sequencing endeavours. Finally, we propose increased investment in amphibian genomics research to promote their conservation.

Indexed as

AmphibiansGenomeGenomicsAnimalsDNA Transposable ElementsPhylogenyDNA Transposable Elementsamphibian genomescomparative genomicsgenome syntenyrepeat expansiontransposable elements

Identifiers

PMID39364691
PMCPMC11646304

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.