Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolutionary Novelty in a Butterfly Wing Pattern through Enhancer Shuffling

Open access
Wallbank, Richard W. R., Baxter, Simon W., Pardo-Diaz, Carolina, Hanly, Joseph J., Martin, Simon H., Mallet, James, Dasmahapatra, Kanchon K., Salazar, Camilo, Joron, Mathieu, Nadeau, Nicola, McMillan, W. Owen, Jiggins, Chris D.·2016·PLOS Biology

Abstract

An important goal in evolutionary biology is to understand the genetic changes underlying novel morphological structures. We investigated the origins of a complex wing pattern found among Amazonian Heliconius butterflies. Genome sequence data from 142 individuals across 17 species identified narrow regions associated with two distinct red colour pattern elements, dennis and ray. We hypothesise that these modules in non-coding sequence represent distinct cis-regulatory loci that control expression of the transcription factor optix, which in turn controls red pattern variation across Heliconius. Phylogenetic analysis of the two elements demonstrated that they have distinct evolutionary histories and that novel adaptive morphological variation was created by shuffling these cis-regulatory modules through recombination between divergent lineages. In addition, recombination of modules into different combinations within species further contributes to diversity. Analysis of the timing of diversification in these two regions supports the hypothesis of introgression moving regulatory modules between species, rather than shared ancestral variation. The dennis phenotype introgressed into Heliconius melpomene at about the same time that ray originated in this group, while ray introgressed back into H. elevatus much more recently. We show that shuffling of existing enhancer elements both within and between species provides a mechanism for rapid diversification and generation of novel morphological combinations during adaptive radiation.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002353

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Wallbank, R. W. R., Baxter, S. W., Pardo-Diaz, C., Hanly, J. J., Martin, S. H., Mallet, J., Dasmahapatra, K. K., Salazar, C., Joron, M., Nadeau, N., McMillan, W. O., & Jiggins, C. D.
Venue
PLOS Biology
Published
2016-01-15
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
e1002353
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2238865811
Cited by
164
References
5
FWCI
16.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Evolutionary Novelty in a Butterfly Wing Pattern through Enhancer Shuffling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002353
The paper
Wallbank, R. W. R., Baxter, S. W., Pardo-Diaz, C., Hanly, J. J., Martin, S. H., Mallet, J., Dasmahapatra, K. K., Salazar, C., Joron, M., Nadeau, N., McMillan, W. O., & Jiggins, C. D. (2016). Evolutionary Novelty in a Butterfly Wing Pattern through Enhancer Shuffling. PLOS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002353

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.