Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39480880›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Detectability of runs of homozygosity is influenced by analysis parameters and population-specific demographic history.

Gabriel A A Silva, Avril M Harder, Kenneth B Kirksey, Samarth Mathur, Janna R Willoughby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating inbreeding and assessing the risk of outbreeding depression in genetic rescue using whole-genome sequence data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors.

Gabriel A A SilvaCollege of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0026-8643
Avril M HarderCollege of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7371-4002
Kenneth B KirkseyWalker College of Business, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0006-0246-2315
Samarth MathurDepartment of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6446-5718
Janna R WilloughbyCollege of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0176-1878

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 1025651National Science Foundation 2010251
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wild populations are increasingly threatened by human-mediated climate change and land use changes. As populations decline, the probability of inbreeding increases, along with the potential for negative effects on individual fitness. Detecting and characterizing runs of homozygosity (ROHs) is a popular strategy for assessing the extent of individual inbreeding present in a population and can also shed light on the genetic mechanisms contributing to inbreeding depression. Here, we analyze simulated and empirical datasets to demonstrate the downstream effects of program selection and long-term demographic history on ROH inference, leading to context-dependent biases in the results. Through a sensitivity analysis we evaluate how various parameter values impact ROH-calling results, highlighting its utility as a tool for parameter exploration. Our results indicate that ROH inferences are sensitive to factors such as sequencing depth and ROH length distribution, with bias direction and magnitude varying with demographic history and the programs used. Estimation biases are particularly pronounced at lower sequencing depths, potentially leading to either underestimation or overestimation of inbreeding. These results are particularly important for the management of endangered species, as underestimating inbreeding signals in the genome can substantially undermine conservation initiatives. We also found that small true ROHs can be incorrectly lumped together and called as longer ROHs, leading to erroneous inference of recent inbreeding. To address these challenges, we suggest using a combination of ROH detection tools and ROH length-specific inferences, along with sensitivity analysis, to generate robust and context-appropriate population inferences regarding inbreeding history. We outline these recommendations for ROH estimation at multiple levels of sequencing effort, which are typical of conservation genomics studies.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationHomozygoteInbreedingAnimalsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID39480880
PMCPMC11556709

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.