ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2020
Purifying Selection in Corvids Is Less Efficient on Islands.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptive Potential ofEvolutionary applications · 2025Article
- Reconciling Gene Tree Discordance and Biogeography in European Crows.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Genomes of Galápagos Mockingbirds Reveal the Impact of Island Size and Past Demography on Inbreeding and Genetic Load in Contemporary Populations.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Genome-wide relaxation of selection and the evolution of the island syndrome in Orkney voles.Genome research · 2024Article
- Using Computational Simulations to Model Deleterious Variation and Genetic Load in Natural Populations.The American naturalist · 2023Review
- Genomic signatures of convergent shifts to plunge-diving behavior in birds.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Adaptation to the High-Arctic island environment despite long-term reduced genetic variation in Svalbard reindeer.iScience · 2023Article
- Contrasting genomic consequences of anthropogenic reintroduction and natural recolonization in high-arctic wild reindeer.Evolutionary applications · 2023Article
- Unraveling Prevalence and Effects of Deleterious Mutations in Maize Elite Lines across Decades of Modern Breeding.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Using conservation genetics to prioritise management options for an endangered songbird.Heredity · 2023Article
- Genetic load: genomic estimates and applications in non-model animals.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2022Review
- A Nearly Neutral Model of Molecular Signatures of Natural Selection after Change in Population Size.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Theory predicts that deleterious mutations accumulate more readily in small populations. As a consequence, mutation load is expected to be elevated in species where life-history strategies and geographic or historical contingencies reduce the number of reproducing individuals. Yet, few studies have empirically tested this prediction using genome-wide data in a comparative framework. We collected whole-genome sequencing data for 147 individuals across seven crow species (Corvus spp.). For each species, we estimated the distribution of fitness effects of deleterious mutations and compared it with proxies of the effective population size Ne. Island species with comparatively smaller geographic range sizes had a significantly increased mutation load. These results support the view that small populations have an elevated risk of mutational meltdown, which may contribute to the higher extinction rates observed in island species.
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.