ArticleApplications in plant sciences
Detecting cryptic ghost lineage introgression in four-taxon genomic datasets.
Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weak but Repeated Patterns of Co-Introgression of Nuclear OXPHOS Genes and Mitochondrial DNA in Iberian Wall Lizards.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Detecting cryptic ghost lineage introgression in four-taxon genomic datasets.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premise: Hybridization and introgression are pervasive evolutionary forces that have played fundamental roles in shaping the diversity of wild and domesticated plants. Four-taxon tests for introgression provide a reliable framework for detecting signatures of ancient introgression from genomic data, which have played an important role in revealing the reticulate nature of plant evolution; however, there is emerging evidence that a cryptic process known as ghost lineage introgression has the potential to dramatically skew interpretations of four-taxon introgression statistics, particularly our ability to determine the lineages involved in introgression. This ambiguity limits our ability to resolve the mechanisms and functional implications of introgression because it means we can determine neither the donor nor the recipient of introgressed alleles with confidence. Methods: Here, we develop ghostbuster, a statistical test designed to detect ghost lineage introgression in genomic data based on patterns of sequence divergence. We employ coalescent simulations to test our method and ascertain the conditions under which it accurately identifies ingroup versus ghost lineage introgression. Finally, to demonstrate the utility of ghostbuster, we apply it to a previously identified introgression event in the plant family Brassicaceae. Results: Our simulations reveal that ghostbuster accurately distinguishes ghost lineage introgression from ingroup introgression across a range of introgression scenarios, with errors arising only when divergence events are closely spaced or when ancestral population sizes are unbalanced. Our analysis of empirical plant data reveals that the previously identified introgression likely constitutes ghost lineage introgression and, thus, was previously misinterpreted. Discussion: Our analyses of simulated and empirical data demonstrate that ghostbuster will be a helpful tool in resolving reticulate evolution in plants and other taxa. We demonstrate the biological insights that ghostbuster provides by presenting an updated model of ghost lineage introgression in Brassicaceae, impacting our understanding of the molecular evolution of crop and model species in this important plant lineage. Ghostbuster code is freely available at: https://github.com/EvanForsythe/Ghost_introgression.
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.