Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40574265›Full record

ReviewMolecular ecology2025

Genome Architecture and Speciation in Plants and Animals.

Silu Wang, Judith E Mank, Daniel Ortiz-Barrientos, Loren H Rieseberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Silu WangDepartment of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0496-1728
Judith E MankDepartment of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2450-513X
Daniel Ortiz-BarrientosSchool of the Environment and ARC Centre for Plant Success in Nature and Agriculture, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7493-416X
Loren H RiesebergDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2712-2417

Funding

Australian Research Council CE200100015Australian Research Council DP120104559Australian Research Council DP190103039Canada Research ChairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 327475Research Foundation for the State University of New York IFR 941116-13Research Foundation for the State University of New York RF 1183754-5-75023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been numerous treatments of specific topics in speciation, but surprisingly few papers have compared patterns and processes of speciation across different organismal groups. In this review, we partially address this gap by asking how variation in genome architecture impacts speciation across the plant and animal kingdoms. First, we briefly summarise what is known about speciation in these groups; importantly, the diversification rate of plants is about twice that of animals, and species barriers in plants may arise at an earlier stage of divergence. Next, we discuss several of the major differences in how plant and animal genomes evolve, and how they may impact the evolution of reproductive barriers and potentially speciation rates. Key differences include (1) a higher frequency of whole-genome duplications (WGDs) and more rapid loss of synteny in plants; (2) a higher incidence and greater divergence of sex chromosomes in animals; (3) greater rates of sequence change, but slower rates of structural evolution, in animal relative to plant mitochondrial genomes; and (4) an often higher abundance of transposable elements (TEs) in plant genomes. Overall, we find the genomes of plants diverge much more rapidly in structure than those of animals (although there are many exceptions), perhaps contributing to a more rapid emergence of barriers to gene flow in plants. However, we also found that comparisons of genome evolution between the kingdoms are hampered by inconsistency in the methods employed, as well as in the metrics used to report on rates of structural evolution. Another theme from our review is the huge variation in genome architecture within each kingdom. While this variation complicates broad generalisations, it enables powerful comparative analyses that link differences in genome architecture to patterns and processes of speciation.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationGenome, PlantPlantsAnimalsDNA Transposable ElementsEvolution, MolecularGenome, MitochondrialSex ChromosomesSyntenyDNA Transposable Elementsanimalsgenome architectureplantsreproductive isolationspeciation

Identifiers

PMID40574265
PMCPMC12617341

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.