ArticlePloS one2025
More than half a century of evolutionary studies in Rhodnius prolixus Stål, 1859 (Hemiptera, Triatominae): revisiting and discussing old and new data on intra- and interspecific reproductive barriers.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rhodnius represents a paraphyletic group, being R. prolixus one of the most important domestic vectors of the Chagas disease. Several phenotypic identification problems, as well as divergences between classical and molecular taxonomy, have been reported. Furthermore, phylogenetic and phylogenomic studies demonstrated possible introgression events between R. prolixus and R. robustus. Based on the above, we revisited all the literature on hybridization involving R. prolixus and performed interspecific crosses between R. prolixus and other species of the R. prolixus group (R. nasutus, R. neivai, and R. robustus) to evaluate potential reproductive barriers and discuss taxonomic and evolutionary issues related to intra- and interspecific reproductive isolation. With the exception of the cross between R. prolixus females and R. neivai males, all other combinations resulted in hybrid offspring. Moreover, except for the cross between R. prolixus females and R. robustus males, all other combinations exhibited postzygotic barriers, including inviability, sterility and/or hybrid collapse. These results indicate that, in at least one direction, R. nasutus, R. neivai, and R. robustus are reproductively isolated from R. prolixus, confirming the specific status of the four taxa. Furthermore, based on the observed barriers, we suggest that introgression is unlikely between R. prolixus and R. nasutus, unlike R. neivai and R. robustus, which could exchange genetic material with R. prolixus through introgression, under natural conditions. Finally, we discuss all available literature on intra- and interspecific crosses of R. prolixus, demonstrating that R. pictipes and R. neglectus are also reproductively isolated from R. prolixus. Additionally, we highlight reproductive barriers observed between allopatric populations of R. prolixus, emphasizing the need for a phylogenomic study - including field-collected specimens sampled across the entire distribution of R. prolixus - to clarify evolutionary and taxonomic questions.
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.