ArticleBMC genetics2014
Conservation genetics of a threatened butterfly: comparison of allozymes, RAPDs and microsatellites.
Article in BMC genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in quantifying genome erosion for conservation.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Article
- Chronic radiation exposure at Chernobyl shows no effect on genetic diversity in the freshwater crustacean,Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Identification of Bactrian camel cell lines using genetic markers.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2018Article
- Development and Application of Genomic Resources in an Endangered Palaeoendemic Tree,Frontiers in plant science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAddressing genetic issues in the management of fragmented wild populations of threatened species is one of the most important challenges in conservation biology. Nowadays, a diverse array of molecular methods exists to assess genetic diversity and differentiation of wild populations such as allozymes, dominant markers and co-dominant markers. However it remains worthwhile i) to compare the genetic estimates obtained using those several markers in order to ii) test their relative utility, reliability and relevance and iii) the impact of these results for the design of species-specific conservation measures.
resultsFollowing the successful isolation of 15 microsatellites loci for the cranberry fritillary butterfly, Boloria aquilonaris, we analyzed the genetic diversity and structure of eight populations located in four different landscapes, at both the regional and the landscape scales. We confront results based on microsatellites to those obtained using allozymes and RAPDs on the same samples. Genetic population analyses using different molecular markers indicate that the B. aquilonaris populations are characterized by a weak genetic variation, likely due to low effective population size and low dispersal at the regional scale. This results in inbreeding in some populations, which may have detrimental consequences on their long term viability. However, gene flow within landscape is limited but not inexistent, with some long range movements resulting in low or no isolation by distance. Spatial structuring was detected among the most isolated populations.
conclusionsThe use of allozymes and RAPD are of very limited value to determine population structuring at small spatial (i.e. landscape) scales, microsatellites giving much higher estimate resolution. The use of RAPD data is also limited for evidencing inbreeding. However, coarse-grain spatial structure (i.e. regional scale), and gene flow estimates based on RAPD and microsatellites data gave congruent results. At a time with increasing development of new molecular methods and markers, dominant markers may still be worthwhile to consider in organisms for which no genomic information is available, and for which limited resources are available.
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.