Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genomic islands of divergence in hybridizing Heliconius butterflies identified by large-scale targeted sequencing

Open access
Nadeau, Nicola J., Whibley, Annabel, Jones, Robert T., Davey, John W., Dasmahapatra, Kanchon K., Baxter, Simon W., Quail, Michael A., Joron, Mathieu, ffrench-Constant, Richard H., Blaxter, Mark L., Mallet, James, Jiggins, Chris D.·2012·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Heliconius butterflies represent a recent radiation of species, in which wing pattern divergence has been implicated in speciation. Several loci that control wing pattern phenotypes have been mapped and two were identified through sequencing. These same gene regions play a role in adaptation across the whole Heliconius radiation. Previous studies of population genetic patterns at these regions have sequenced small amplicons. Here, we use targeted next-generation sequence capture to survey patterns of divergence across these entire regions in divergent geographical races and species of Heliconius . This technique was successful both within and between species for obtaining high coverage of almost all coding regions and sufficient coverage of non-coding regions to perform population genetic analyses. We find major peaks of elevated population differentiation between races across hybrid zones, which indicate regions under strong divergent selection. These ‘islands’ of divergence appear to be more extensive between closely related species, but there is less clear evidence for such islands between more distantly related species at two further points along the ‘speciation continuum’. We also sequence fosmid clones across these regions in different Heliconius melpomene races. We find no major structural rearrangements but many relatively large (greater than 1 kb) insertion/deletion events (including gain/loss of transposable elements) that are variable between races.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2011.0198

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Nadeau, N. J., Whibley, A., Jones, R. T., Davey, J. W., Dasmahapatra, K. K., Baxter, S. W., Quail, M. A., Joron, M., ffrench-Constant, R. H., Blaxter, M. L., Mallet, J., & Jiggins, C. D.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2012-02-05
Volume
367
Issue
1587
Pages
343-353
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2142666504
Cited by
313
References
55
FWCI
19.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genomic islands of divergence in hybridizing Heliconius butterflies identified by large-scale targeted sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2011.0198
The paper
Nadeau, N. J., Whibley, A., Jones, R. T., Davey, J. W., Dasmahapatra, K. K., Baxter, S. W., Quail, M. A., Joron, M., ffrench-Constant, R. H., Blaxter, M. L., Mallet, J., & Jiggins, C. D. (2012). Genomic islands of divergence in hybridizing Heliconius butterflies identified by large-scale targeted sequencing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0198

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.