ArticleGenetics research2014
Improving the inference of population genetic structure in the presence of related individuals.
Article in Genetics research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Diversity in Coppice Chestnut Forests in Central Italy and Potential Use of SSR-Based Timber Traceability.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Insights from the rescue and breeding management of Cuvier's gazelle (Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- Telemetry and genetics reveal asymmetric dispersal of a lake-feeding salmonid between inflow and outflow spawning streams at a microgeographic scale.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Highly dense linkage maps from 31 full-sibling families of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) provide insights into recombination patterns and chromosome rearrangements throughout a newly refined genome assembly.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2018Article
- Article
- A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population.Royal Society open science · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well known that the presence of related individuals can affect the inference of population genetic structure from molecular data. This has been verified, for example, on the unsupervised Bayesian clustering algorithm implemented in the software STRUCTURE. This methodology assumes, among others, Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibrium within subpopulations. The existence of groups of close relatives, such as full-sib families, may prevent these assumptions to be fulfilled, causing the algorithm to work suboptimally. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the presence of related individuals on a different methodology (implemented in CLUSTER_DIST) for population genetic structure inference. This approach arranges individuals to maximize the genetic distance between groups and does not make Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibrium assumptions. We study the robustness of this approach to the presence of close relatives in a sample using simulated scenarios involving combinations of several factors, including the number of subpopulations, the level of differentiation between them, the number, size and type (full or half-sibs) of families in a sample, and the type and number of molecular markers available for clustering analysis. Results indicate that the methodology that maximizes the genetic distance between subpopulations is less influenced by the presence of related individuals than the program STRUCTURE. Therefore, the former can be used, in combination with the program STRUCTURE, to analyse population genetic structure when related individuals are suspected to be present in a sample.
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.