Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18211868›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2008

Wild pedigrees: the way forward.

J M Pemberton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Estimating realized relatedness in free-ranging macaques by inferring identity-by-descent segments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Kinship composition in mammals.Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Taking quantitative genomics into the wild.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

J M PembertonInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK. j.pemberton@ed.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metrics derived from pedigrees are key to investigating several major issues in evolutionary biology, including the quantitative genetic architecture of traits, inbreeding depression, and the evolution of cooperation and inbreeding avoidance. There is merit in studying these issues in natural populations experiencing spatially and temporally variable environmental conditions, since these analyses may yield different results from laboratory studies and allow us to understand population responses to rapid environmental change. Partial pedigrees are now available for several natural populations which are the subject of long-term individual-based studies, and analyses using these pedigrees are leading to important insights. Accurate pedigree construction supported by molecular genetic data is now feasible across a wide range of taxa, and even where only imprecise pedigrees are available it is possible to estimate the consequences of imprecision for the questions of interest. In outbred diploid populations, the pedigree approach is superior to analyses based on marker-based pairwise estimators of coancestry.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPedigreeAnimalsAnimals, WildFemaleGenetic MarkersGenetics, PopulationInbreedingMaleGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID18211868
PMCPMC2386891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.