ArticleEcology and evolution2013
Investigating sex-specific dynamics using uniparental markers: West New Guinea as a case study.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- SPLATCHE3: simulation of serial genetic data under spatially explicit evolutionary scenarios including long-distance dispersal.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- Out of Africa: demographic and colonization history of the Algerian mouse (Mus spretus Lataste).Heredity · 2019Article
- On the role played by the carrying capacity and the ancestral population size during a range expansion.Heredity · 2017Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome (NRY) genetic markers have been often contrasted to investigate sex-specific dynamics. Traditionally, isolation by distance, intrapopulation genetic diversity and population differentiation are estimated from both markers and compared. Two possible sources of bias are often neglected. First, kilometric distances are frequently used as predictor of the connectivity between groups, hiding the role played by environmental features at a microgeographic scale. Second, the comparison of intrapopulation diversity and population differentiation between mtDNA and NRY is hampered by their different mutational mechanisms and rates. Here, we show how to account for these biases by analyzing from a different perspective a published dataset of eight West New Guinea (WNG) populations for which mtDNA control region sequences and seven linked NRY microsatellites had been typed. First, we modeled the connectivity among sampled populations by computing the number of days required to travel between groups. Then, we investigated the differences between the two sexes accounting for the molecular characteristics of the markers examined to obtain estimates on the product of the effective population size and the migration rate among demes (Nm). We achieved this goal by studying the shape of the gene genealogy at several sampling levels and using spatial explicit simulations. Both the direction and the rate of migration differ between male and females, with an Nm estimated to be >6 times higher in the latter under many evolutionary scenarios. We finally highlight the importance of applying metapopulation models when analyzing the genetic diversity of a species. We have applied the prediction of the sampling theory in a meta-population and we have corroborated our finding using spatial explicit simulations. Both approaches are fundamentally meant to deal with structured populations: we strongly believe in the importance of tacking structure into account when inferring the demographic history of a species.
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.