Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Time-calibrated backbone spider phylogeny.

Modified from [9], this phylogeny shows the placement of major clades. Families containing taxa used in this study are highlighted with red asterisks.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Transcriptome assembly summary statistics.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Results of CEGMA analyses.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Distribution of OHR values.

Histograms (main figure) and boxplots (inset) depict the distribution of OHR values in each species. Outliers have been removed from boxplots to better visualize results. Note the axis scale differences in the C. travisae plots.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Results of GO analysis.

Bar chart showing the proportion of annotated transcripts containing various GO terms (Level 2) across the 3 major categories.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Tests for positive selection.

(a) Phylogeny indicating the number of instances in which each branch was found to be under positive selection. Nesticus image used under a CC BY license with permission from Alan Cressler. (b) Most frequent GO terms found in PSGs.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Genes under positive selection as identified by codeml branch-site analysis.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 5.

Venn diagrams showing results of the orphan gene search.

Numbers within circle intersections represent genes shared among taxa. Numbers outside of intersections are genes exclusive to that taxon.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Boxplots of evolutionary rate comparisons between orthologs (grey) and orphan genes (white).

(a) Cicurina, (b) Habronattus and (c) Nesticus. The main plot shows estimates of ω, while the inset shows Ka (top) and Ks (bottom). Outliers have been removed to better visualize the inter-quartile ranges. Mann-Whitney U tests indicate that all parameter estimates are significantly greater in orphan genes, with the exception of the Nesticus Ks comparison which shows no significant difference.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison of substitution rates between congeneric orphan genes and orthologs.

More »

Table 4 Expand