Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32431748›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2020

A comparison of pedigree, genetic and genomic estimates of relatedness for informing pairing decisions in two critically endangered birds: Implications for conservation breeding programmes worldwide.

Stephanie J Galla, Roger Moraga, Liz Brown, Simone Cleland, Marc P Hoeppner, Richard F Maloney, Anne Richardson, Lyndon Slater, Anna W Santure, Tammy E Steeves

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Pedigree analysis in the mhorr gazelle (Ecology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. New tools for the recovery of the kākāpō.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephanie J GallaSchool of Biological Sciences University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4650-8067
Roger MoragaTea Break Bioinformatics, Ltd Palmerston North New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7806-1135
Liz BrownNew Zealand Department of Conservation Twizel New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-3900
Simone ClelandNew Zealand Department of Conservation Twizel New Zealand.
Marc P HoeppnerInstitute for Clinical Molecular Biology Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel Kiel Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0279-2270
Richard F MaloneyNew Zealand Department of Conservation Christchurch New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1699-763X
Anne RichardsonThe Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust Christchurch New Zealand.
Lyndon SlaterNew Zealand Department of Conservation Rangiora New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6832-2821
Anna W SantureSchool of Biological Sciences University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand.
Tammy E SteevesSchool of Biological Sciences University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand.
Department of Conservation · NZUniversity of Canterbury · NZChristchurch Clinical Studies Trust · NZChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DEUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservation management strategies for many highly threatened species include conservation breeding to prevent extinction and enhance recovery. Pairing decisions for these conservation breeding programmes can be informed by pedigree data to minimize relatedness between individuals in an effort to avoid inbreeding, maximize diversity and maintain evolutionary potential. However, conservation breeding programmes struggle to use this approach when pedigrees are shallow or incomplete. While genetic data (i.e., microsatellites) can be used to estimate relatedness to inform pairing decisions, emerging evidence indicates this approach may lack precision in genetically depauperate species, and more effective estimates will likely be obtained from genomic data (i.e., thousands of genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs). Here, we compare relatedness estimates and subsequent pairing decisions using pedigrees, microsatellites and SNPs from whole-genome resequencing approaches in two critically endangered birds endemic to New Zealand: kakī/black stilt (

Indexed as

conservation breedingconservation geneticsconservation genomicspairing recommendationsPMxrelatedness

Identifiers

PMID32431748
PMCPMC7232769
OpenAlexW3000361107

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.