Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26059970›Full record

ArticleHeredity2015

Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees.

M Kardos, G Luikart, F W Allendorf

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
25.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 415 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Repeated genetic adaptation under demographic limits in kiwifruit.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

88 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

M Kardos1] Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA [2] Department of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre (EBC), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
G LuikartFlathead Lake Biological Station, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Polson, MT, USA.
F W AllendorfDivision of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
University of Montana · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inbreeding (mating between relatives) can dramatically reduce the fitness of offspring by causing parts of the genome to be identical by descent. Thus, measuring individual inbreeding is crucial for ecology, evolution and conservation biology. We used computer simulations to test whether the realized proportion of the genome that is identical by descent (IBDG) is predicted better by the pedigree inbreeding coefficient (FP) or by genomic (marker-based) measures of inbreeding. Genomic estimators of IBDG included the increase in individual homozygosity relative to mean Hardy-Weinberg expected homozygosity (FH), and two measures (FROH and FE) that use mapped genetic markers to estimate IBDG. IBDG was more strongly correlated with FH, FE and FROH than with FP across a broad range of simulated scenarios when thousands of SNPs were used. For example, IBDG was more strongly correlated with FROH, FH and FE (estimated with ⩾10 000 SNPs) than with FP (estimated with 20 generations of complete pedigree) in populations with a recent reduction in the effective populations size (from Ne=500 to Ne=75). FROH, FH and FE generally explained >90% of the variance in IBDG (among individuals) when 35 K or more SNPs were used. FP explained <80% of the variation in IBDG on average in all simulated scenarios, even when pedigrees included 20 generations. Our results demonstrate that IBDG can be more precisely estimated with large numbers of genetic markers than with pedigrees. We encourage researchers to adopt genomic marker-based measures of IBDG as thousands of loci can now be genotyped in any species.

Indexed as

InbreedingModels, GeneticAnimalsComputer SimulationGenetic MarkersGenomicsHomozygoteLinkage DisequilibriumMammalsPedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID26059970
PMCPMC4815495
OpenAlexW2114850135

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.