ArticleHeredity2013
Purging deleterious mutations in conservation programmes: combining optimal contributions with inbred matings.
Article in Heredity, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeted allele frequency tuning in breeding populations via alternative optimum contribution selection.Genetics · 2026Article
- A Similarity Matrix for Preserving Haplotype Diversity Amongst Parents in Genomic Selection.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Characterizing and Eliminating the Inbreeding Load.Veterinary sciences · 2023Review
- Inbreeding Depression and Purging for Meat Performance Traits in German Sheep Breeds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effect of Individual Rate of Inbreeding, Recent and Ancestral Inbreeding on Wool Quality, Muscling Conformation and Exterior in German Sheep Breeds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Reintroducing genetic diversity in populations from cryopreserved material: the case of Abondance, a French local dairy cattle breed.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Fine-tuning genomic and pedigree inbreeding rates in equine population with a deep and reliable stud book: the case of the Pura Raza Española horse.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Purging of deleterious burden in the endangered Iberian lynx.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Genomic analysis of the rare British Lop pig and identification of distinctive genomic markers.PloS one · 2022Article
- Genome-Wide Estimates of Runs of Homozygosity, Heterozygosity, and Genetic Load in Two Chinese Indigenous Goat Breeds.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Genetic purging in captive endangered ungulates with extremely low effective population sizes.Heredity · 2021Article
- Article
- The type of bottleneck matters: Insights into the deleterious variation landscape of small managed populations.Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Key Genetic Parameters for Population Management.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Deleterious alleles in the context of domestication, inbreeding, and selection.Evolutionary applications · 2019Review
- Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein-Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Inbreeding load and purging: implications for the short-term survival and the conservation management of small populations.Heredity · 2017Article
- Response to selection while maximizing genetic variance in small populations.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2016Article
- Reduction in the cumulative effect of stress-induced inbreeding depression due to intragenerational purging in Drosophila melanogaster.Heredity · 2016Article
- Using genome-wide measures of coancestry to maintain diversity and fitness in endangered and domestic pig populations.Genome research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservation programmes aim at minimising the loss of genetic diversity, which allows populations to adapt to potential environmental changes. This can be achieved by calculating how many offspring every individual should contribute to the next generation to minimise global coancestry. However, an undesired consequence of this strategy is that it maintains deleterious mutations, compromising the viability of the population. In order to avoid this, optimal contributions could be combined with inbred matings, to expose and eliminate recessive deleterious mutations by natural selection in a process known as purging. Although some populations that have undergone purging experienced reduced inbreeding depression, this effect is not consistent across species. Whether purging by inbred matings is efficient in conservation programmes depends on the balance between the loss of diversity, the initial decrease in fitness and the reduction in mutational load. Here we perform computer simulations to determine whether managing a population by combining optimal contributions with inbred matings improves its long-term viability while keeping reasonable levels of diversity. We compare the management based on genealogical information with management based on molecular data to calculate coancestries. In the scenarios analysed, inbred matings never led to higher fitness and usually maintained lower diversity than random or minimum coancestry matings. Replacing genealogical with molecular coancestry can maintain a larger genetic diversity but can also lead to a lower fitness. Our results are strongly dependent on the mutational model assumed for the trait under selection, the population size during management and the reproductive rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.