ArticleScientific reports2025
Subfamily evolution analysis using nuclear and chloroplast data from the same reads.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comparative Chloroplast Genomics, Codon Usage Bias, and Phylogenetic Placement ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- The complete chloroplast genome of Amomum cinnamomeum (Zingiberaceae).Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Phylogeographic and Potential Distribution of Wild Apricot (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Comparative Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of WildPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ongoing structural changes highlight the dynamic nature of chloroplast genomes.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- The complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026Article
- Article
- Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome of a woody invasive species,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The chloroplast (cp) genome is a widely used tool for exploring plant evolutionary relationships, yet its effectiveness in fully resolving these relationships remains uncertain. Integrating cp genome data with nuclear DNA information offers a more comprehensive view but often requires separate datasets. In response, we employed the same raw read sequencing data to construct cp genome-based trees and nuclear DNA phylogenetic trees using Read2Tree, a cost-efficient method for extracting conserved nuclear gene sequences from raw read data, focusing on the Aurantioideae subfamily, which includes Citrus and its relatives. The resulting nuclear DNA trees were consistent with existing nuclear evolutionary relationships derived from high-throughput sequencing, but diverged from cp genome-based trees. To elucidate the underlying complex evolutionary processes causing these discordances, we implemented an integrative workflow that utilized multiple alignments of each gene generated by Read2Tree, in conjunction with other phylogenomic methods. Our analysis revealed that incomplete lineage sorting predominantly drives these discordances, while introgression and ancient introgression also contribute to topological discrepancies within certain clades. This study underscores the cost-effectiveness of using the same raw sequencing data for both cp and nuclear DNA analyses in understanding plant evolutionary relationships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.