Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30205843›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2018

Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era.

Megan A Supple, Beth Shapiro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

157 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

97 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

2 authors.

Megan A SuppleDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060, USA. megan.a.supple@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0204-7852
Beth ShapiroDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060, USA. bashapir@ucsc.edu.

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (US) GBMF 3804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Conservation genomics" encompasses the idea that genome-scale data will improve the capacity of resource managers to protect species. Although genetic approaches have long been used in conservation research, it has only recently become tractable to generate genome-wide data at a scale that is useful for conservation. In this Review, we discuss how genome-scale data can inform species delineation in the face of admixture, facilitate evolution through the identification of adaptive alleles, and enhance evolutionary rescue based on genomic patterns of inbreeding. As genomic approaches become more widely adopted in conservation, we expect that they will have a positive impact on management and policy decisions.

Indexed as

BiodiversityGenomicsAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEvolution, MolecularInbreedingMarsupialiaWolves

Identifiers

PMID30205843
PMCPMC6131752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.