ArticleHeredity2019
Structure of multilocus genetic diversity in predominantly selfing populations.
Article in Heredity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analysis of the population genetic structure and demographic history ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Population genetic structure in a self-compatible hermaphroditic snail is driven by drift independently of its contemporary mating system.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Evolution of flowering time in a selfing annual plant: Roles of adaptation and genetic drift.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Article
- Evidence of spontaneous selfing and disomic inheritance inEcology and evolution · 2021Article
- How and When Does Outcrossing Occur in the Predominantly Selfing SpeciesFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Genotype-environment interaction and the maintenance of genetic variation: an empirical study ofRoyal Society open science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predominantly selfing populations are expected to have reduced effective population sizes due to nonrandom sampling of gametes, demographic stochasticity (bottlenecks or extinction-recolonization), and large scale hitchhiking (reduced effective recombination). Thus, they are expected to display low genetic diversity, which was confirmed by empirical studies. The structure of genetic diversity in predominantly selfing species is dramatically different from outcrossing ones, with populations often dominated by one or a few multilocus genotypes (MLGs) coexisting with several rare genotypes. Therefore, multilocus diversity indices are relevant to describe diversity in selfing populations. Here, we use simulations to provide analytical expectations for multilocus indices and examine whether selfing alone can be responsible for the high-frequency MLGs persistent through time in the absence of selection. We then examine how combining single and multilocus indices of diversity may be insightful to distinguish the effects of selfing, population size, and more complex demographic events (bottlenecks, migration, admixture, or extinction-recolonization). Finally, we examine how temporal changes in MLG frequencies can be insightful to understand the evolutionary trajectory of a given population. We show that combinations of selfing and small demographic sizes can result in high-frequency MLGs, as observed in natural populations. We also show how different demographic scenarios can be distinguished by the parallel analysis of single and multilocus indices of diversity, and we emphasize the importance of temporal data for the study of predominantly selfing populations. Finally, the comparison of our simulations with empirical data on populations of Medicago truncatula confirms the pertinence of our simulation framework.
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.