Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30697338›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2019

Nonequivalent lethal equivalents: Models and inbreeding metrics for unbiased estimation of inbreeding load.

Pirmin Nietlisbach, Stefanie Muff, Jane M Reid, Michael C Whitlock, Lukas F Keller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Demography and environment modulate the effects of genetic diversity on extinction risk in a butterfly metapopulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Detecting inbreeding depression in structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Pirmin NietlisbachDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6224-2246
Stefanie MuffDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Jane M ReidSchool of Biological Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK.
Michael C WhitlockDepartment of Zoology University of British Columbia Vancouver BC Canada.
Lukas F KellerDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inbreeding depression, the deterioration in mean trait value in progeny of related parents, is a fundamental quantity in genetics, evolutionary biology, animal and plant breeding, and conservation biology. The magnitude of inbreeding depression can be quantified by the inbreeding load, typically measured in numbers of lethal equivalents, a population genetic quantity that allows for comparisons between environments, populations or species. However, there is as yet no quantitative assessment of which combinations of statistical models and metrics of inbreeding can yield such estimates. Here, we review statistical models that have been used to estimate inbreeding load and use population genetic simulations to investigate how unbiased estimates can be obtained using genomic and pedigree-based metrics of inbreeding. We use simulated binary viability data (i.e., dead versus alive) as our example, but the concepts apply to any trait that exhibits inbreeding depression. We show that the increasingly popular generalized linear models with logit link do not provide comparable and unbiased population genetic measures of inbreeding load, independent of the metric of inbreeding used. Runs of homozygosity result in unbiased estimates of inbreeding load, whereas inbreeding measured from pedigrees results in slight overestimates. Due to widespread use of models that do not yield unbiased measures of the inbreeding load, some estimates in the literature cannot be compared meaningfully. We surveyed the literature for reliable estimates of the mean inbreeding load from wild vertebrate populations and found an average of 3.5 haploid lethal equivalents for survival to sexual maturity. To obtain comparable estimates, we encourage researchers to use generalized linear models with logarithmic links or maximum-likelihood estimation of the exponential equation, and inbreeding coefficients calculated from runs of homozygosity, provided an assembled reference genome of sufficient quality and enough genetic marker data are available.

Indexed as

conservation biologygeneralized linear (mixed) modelsgenomicsinbreeding coefficientsinbreeding depressionpedigreeruns of homozygosity

Identifiers

PMID30697338
PMCPMC6346663

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.