ArticleScientific reports2017
Overcoming the dichotomy between open and isolated populations using genomic data from a large European dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Population Isolates to Identify Metabolic Syndrome's Genetic Aetiology.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Review
- Through 40,000 years of human presence in Southern Europe: the Italian case study.Human genetics · 2021Review
- Y-chromosome variability and genetic history of Commons from Northern Italy.American journal of physical anthropology · 2021Article
- Worldwide variation of the COL14A1 gene is shaped by genetic drift rather than selective pressure.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Article
- Genetic history of Calabrian Greeks reveals ancient events and long term isolation in the Aspromonte area of Southern Italy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genomic history of the Italian population recapitulates key evolutionary dynamics of both Continental and Southern Europeans.BMC biology · 2020Article
- Dissecting the Pre-Columbian Genomic Ancestry of Native Americans along the Andes-Amazonia Divide.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- VARS2-linked mitochondrial encephalopathy: two case reports enlarging the clinical phenotype.BMC medical genetics · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human populations are often dichotomized into "isolated" and "open" categories using cultural and/or geographical barriers to gene flow as differential criteria. Although widespread, the use of these alternative categories could obscure further heterogeneity due to inter-population differences in effective size, growth rate, and timing or amount of gene flow. We compared intra and inter-population variation measures combining novel and literature data relative to 87,818 autosomal SNPs in 14 open populations and 10 geographic and/or linguistic European isolates. Patterns of intra-population diversity were found to vary considerably more among isolates, probably due to differential levels of drift and inbreeding. The relatively large effective size estimated for some population isolates challenges the generalized view that they originate from small founding groups. Principal component scores based on measures of intra-population variation of isolated and open populations were found to be distributed along a continuum, with an area of intersection between the two groups. Patterns of inter-population diversity were even closer, as we were able to detect some differences between population groups only for a few multidimensional scaling dimensions. Therefore, different lines of evidence suggest that dichotomizing human populations into open and isolated groups fails to capture the actual relations among their genomic features.
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.