ArticleScientific reports2023
Wolf genetic diversity compared across Europe using the yardstick method.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wolf Population Size and Composition in One of Europe's Strongholds, the Romanian Carpathians.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Standardization of a High-Quality Methodological Framework for Long-Term Genetic Monitoring of the French Wolf Population.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Beyond population size: Whole-genome data reveal bottleneck legacies in the peninsular Italian wolf.The Journal of heredity · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating data across studies with traditional microsatellite genetic markers requires careful calibration and represents an obstacle for investigation of wide-ranging species where populations require transboundary management. We used the "yardstick" method to compare results published across Europe since 2002 and new wolf (Canis lupus) genetic profiles from the Carpathian Mountains in Central Europe and the Dinaric Mountains in Southeastern Europe, with the latter as our reference population. We compared each population with Dinaric wolves, considering only shared markers (range 4-17). For each population, we calculated standard genetic diversity indices plus calibrated heterozygosity (Hec) and allelic richness (Ac). Hec and Ac in Dinaric (0.704 and 9.394) and Carpathian wolves (0.695 and 7.023) were comparable to those observed in other large and mid-sized European populations, but smaller than those of northeastern Europe. Major discrepancies in marker choices among some studies made comparisons more difficult. However, the yardstick method, including the new measures of Hec and Ac, provided a direct comparison of genetic diversity values among wolf populations and an intuitive interpretation of the results. The yardstick method thus permitted the integration of diverse sources of publicly available microsatellite data for spatiotemporal genetic monitoring of evolutionary potential.
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.