ArticlePloS one2021
Sample size requirements for genetic studies on yellowfin tuna.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
In population genetics, the amount of information for an analytical task is governed by the number of individuals sampled and the amount of genetic information measured on each of those individuals. In this work, we assessed the numbers of individual yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and genetic markers required for ocean-basin scale inferences. We assessed this for three distinct data analysis tasks that are often employed: testing for differences between genetic profiles; stock delineation, and; assignment of individuals to stocks. For all analytical tasks, we used real (not simulated) data from four sampling locations that span the tropical Pacific Ocean. Whilst spatially separated, the genetic differences between the sampling sites were not substantial, a maximum of approximately Fst = 0.02, which is quite typical of large pelagic fish. We repeatedly sub-sampled the data, mimicking a new survey, and performed the analyses. False positive rates were also assessed by re-sampling and randomly assigning fish to groups. Varying the sample sizes indicated that some analytical tasks, namely profile testing, required relatively few individuals per sampling location (n ≳ 10) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, m ≳ 256). Stock delineation required more individuals per sampling location (n ≳ 25). Assignment of fish to sampling locations required substantially more individuals, more in fact than we had available (n > 50), although this sample size could be reduced to n ≳ 30 when individual fish were assumed to belong to one of the groups sampled. With these results, designers of molecular ecological surveys for yellowfin tuna, and users of information from them, can assess whether the information content is adequate for the required inferential task.
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.