Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18780740›Full record

ArticleGenetics2008

A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective.

Matthieu Foll, Oscar Gaggiotti

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,090 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,090citing papers in PubMed
–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

1,090 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessing differences among elasmobranch nurseries to aid conservation based on a genomics framework.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Population Genetics ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,030 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

2 authors.

Matthieu FollLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 09, France. matthieu.foll@zoo.unibe.ch
Oscar Gaggiotti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying loci under natural selection from genomic surveys is of great interest in different research areas. Commonly used methods to separate neutral effects from adaptive effects are based on locus-specific population differentiation coefficients to identify outliers. Here we extend such an approach to estimate directly the probability that each locus is subject to selection using a Bayesian method. We also extend it to allow the use of dominant markers like AFLPs. It has been shown that this model is robust to complex demographic scenarios for neutral genetic differentiation. Here we show that the inclusion of isolated populations that underwent a strong bottleneck can lead to a high rate of false positives. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that it is possible to avoid them by carefully choosing the populations that should be included in the analysis. We analyze two previously published data sets: a human data set of codominant markers and a Littorina saxatilis data set of dominant markers. We also perform a detailed sensitivity study to compare the power of the method using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), SNP, and microsatellite markers. The method has been implemented in a new software available at our website (http://www-leca.ujf-grenoble.fr/logiciels.htm).

Indexed as

Polymorphism, GeneticAnimalsBayes TheoremGastropodaGene FrequencyGenetic MarkersGenomicsHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID18780740
PMCPMC2567396

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.