ArticleGenes2021
Assessment of the Genetic Potential of the Peregrine Falcon (
Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microsatellite DNA analysis is a powerful tool for assessing population genetics. The main aim of this study was to assess the genetic potential of the peregrine falcon population covered by the restitution program. We characterized individuals from breeders that set their birds for release into the wild and birds that have been reintroduced in previous years. This was done using a well-known microsatellite panel designed for the peregrine falcon containing 10 markers. We calculated the genetic distance between individuals and populations using the UPGMA (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean) method and then performed a Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and constructed phylogenetic trees, to visualize the results. In addition, we used the Bayesian clustering method, assuming 1-15 hypothetical populations, to find the model that best fit the data. Units were segregated into groups regardless of the country of origin, and the number of alleles and observed heterozygosity were different in different breeding groups. The wild and captive populations were grouped independent of the original population.
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.