| 1. |
- Bruneau, Anne, et al.
(författare)
-
Advances in Legume Systematics 14. Classification of Caesalpinioideae. Part 2: Higher-level classification
- 2024
-
Ingår i: PhytoKeys. - Sofia : Pensoft Publishers. - 1314-2011 .- 1314-2003. ; 240, s. 1-552
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Caesalpinioideae is the second largest subfamily of legumes (Leguminosae) with ca. 4680 species and 163 genera. It is an ecologically and economically important group formed of mostly woody perennials that range from large canopy emergent trees to functionally herbaceous geoxyles, lianas and shrubs, and which has a global distribution, occurring on every continent except Antarctica. Following the recent re-circumscription of 15 Caesalpinioideae genera as presented in Advances in Legume Systematics 14, Part 1, and using as a basis a phylogenomic analysis of 997 nuclear gene sequences for 420 species and all but five of the genera currently recognised in the subfamily, we present a new higher-level classification for the subfamily. The new classification of Caesalpinioideae comprises eleven tribes, all of which are either new, reinstated or re-circumscribed at this rank: Caesalpinieae Rchb. (27 genera / ca. 223 species), Campsiandreae LPWG (2 / 5-22), Cassieae Bronn (7 / 695), Cera-tonieae Rchb. (4 / 6), Dimorphandreae Benth. (4 / 35), Erythrophleeae LPWG (2 /13), Gleditsieae Nakai (3 / 20), Mimoseae Bronn (100 / ca. 3510), Pterogyneae LPWG (1 / 1), Schizolobieae Nakai (8 / 42-43), Sclerolobieae Benth. & Hook. f. (5 / ca. 113). Although many of these lineages have been recognised and named in the past, either as tribes or informal generic groups, their circumscriptions have varied widely and changed over the past decades, such that all the tribes described here differ in generic membership from those previously recognised. Importantly, the approximately 3500 species and 100 genera of the former subfamily Mimosoideae are now placed in the reinstated, but newly circumscribed, tribe Mimoseae. Because of the large size and ecological importance of the tribe, we also provide a clade-based classification system for Mimoseae that includes 17 named lower-level clades. Fourteen of the 100 Mimoseae genera remain unplaced in these lower-level clades: eight are resolved in two grades and six are phylogenetically isolated monogeneric lineages. In addition to the new classification, we provide a key to genera, morphological descriptions and notes for all 163 genera, all tribes, and all named clades. The diversity of growth forms, foliage, flowers and fruits are illustrated for all genera, and for each genus we also provide a distribution map, based on quality-controlled herbarium specimen localities. A glossary for specialised terms used in legume morphology is provided. This new phylogenetically based classification of Caesalpinioideae provides a solid system for communication and a framework for downstream analyses of biogeography, trait evolution and diversification, as well as for taxonomic revision of still understudied genera.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Carneiro, Clarissa F. D., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW. - : BMC. - 2058-8615. ; 5:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.
|
|
| 4. |
- Vromman, Marieke, et al.
(författare)
-
Large-scale benchmarking of circRNA detection tools reveals large differences in sensitivity but not in precision
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature Methods. - 1548-7091 .- 1548-7105. ; 20:8, s. 1159-1169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The detection of circular RNA molecules (circRNAs) is typically based on short-read RNA sequencing data processed using computational tools. Numerous such tools have been developed, but a systematic comparison with orthogonal validation is missing. Here, we set up a circRNA detection tool benchmarking study, in which 16 tools detected more than 315,000 unique circRNAs in three deeply sequenced human cell types. Next, 1,516 predicted circRNAs were validated using three orthogonal methods. Generally, tool-specific precision is high and similar (median of 98.8%, 96.3% and 95.5% for qPCR, RNase R and amplicon sequencing, respectively) whereas the sensitivity and number of predicted circRNAs (ranging from 1,372 to 58,032) are the most significant differentiators. Of note, precision values are lower when evaluating low-abundance circRNAs. We also show that the tools can be used complementarily to increase detection sensitivity. Finally, we offer recommendations for future circRNA detection and validation. This study describes benchmarking and validation of computational tools for detecting circRNAs, finding most to be highly precise with variations in sensitivity and total detection. The study also finds over 315,000 putative human circRNAs.
|
|
