|
|
Пишет imp_18533 (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/imported-profile.gif){kind=small} shkrobius@lj) |
Re
It might be easier to suggest a review if you would briefly state your problem. Rather different methods are used for ribosomal, homeobox, and enzyme genes; the success of such methods also strongly varies between, say, unicels, plants, and animals. For the latter, there are problems upon problems upon problems. Many of these problems are traceable to rapid radiation events, especially in the beginning. The paper that impressed me most recently was this one, by Sean Carroll (of the evo-devo fame)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f
I think that it succintly states the main problem with the method:
the approach might exhaust itself before yielding a clear answer. Concerning the insects (I was interested in their origin in the light of Pancrustacean hypothesis), the two recent papers I found most interesting were
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer
and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f
both of which contain most important recent references.
My overall impression is that there are no good reviews, because the field undergoes explosive growth. You have to go through these hundreds of papers and study the benefits, the methods, and the pitfalls -- on a case to case basis. The reviews immediately become obsolete, nearly useless. Perhaps the best approach would be to find an expert and discuss the idea directly; it might be easier than burrowing through a lot of highly technical material. Alas, I am not such an expert.
I apologize for not being more helpful.
It might be easier to suggest a review if you would briefly state your problem. Rather different methods are used for ribosomal, homeobox, and enzyme genes; the success of such methods also strongly varies between, say, unicels, plants, and animals. For the latter, there are problems upon problems upon problems. Many of these problems are traceable to rapid radiation events, especially in the beginning. The paper that impressed me most recently was this one, by Sean Carroll (of the evo-devo fame)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f
I think that it succintly states the main problem with the method:
the approach might exhaust itself before yielding a clear answer. Concerning the insects (I was interested in their origin in the light of Pancrustacean hypothesis), the two recent papers I found most interesting were
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer
and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f
both of which contain most important recent references.
My overall impression is that there are no good reviews, because the field undergoes explosive growth. You have to go through these hundreds of papers and study the benefits, the methods, and the pitfalls -- on a case to case basis. The reviews immediately become obsolete, nearly useless. Perhaps the best approach would be to find an expert and discuss the idea directly; it might be easier than burrowing through a lot of highly technical material. Alas, I am not such an expert.
I apologize for not being more helpful.
Добавить комментарий:
