↓ Skip to main content

A history of hybrids? Genomic patterns of introgression in the True Geese

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
74 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A history of hybrids? Genomic patterns of introgression in the True Geese
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-1048-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jente Ottenburghs, Hendrik-Jan Megens, Robert H. S. Kraus, Pim van Hooft, Sipke E. van Wieren, Richard P. M. A. Crooijmans, Ronald C. Ydenberg, Martien A. M. Groenen, Herbert H. T. Prins

Abstract

The impacts of hybridization on the process of speciation are manifold, leading to distinct patterns across the genome. Genetic differentiation accumulates in certain genomic regions, while divergence is hampered in other regions by homogenizing gene flow, resulting in a heterogeneous genomic landscape. A consequence of this heterogeneity is that genomes are mosaics of different gene histories that can be compared to unravel complex speciation and hybridization events. However, incomplete lineage sorting (often the outcome of rapid speciation) can result in similar patterns. New statistical techniques, such as the D-statistic and hybridization networks, can be applied to disentangle the contributions of hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting. We unravel patterns of hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting during and after the diversification of the True Geese (family Anatidae, tribe Anserini, genera Anser and Branta) using an exon-based hybridization network approach and taking advantage of discordant gene tree histories by re-sequencing all taxa of this clade. In addition, we determine the timing of introgression and reconstruct historical effective population sizes for all goose species to infer which demographic or biogeographic factors might explain the observed patterns of introgression. We find indications for ancient interspecific gene flow during the diversification of the True Geese and were able to pinpoint several putative hybridization events. Specifically, in the genus Branta, both the ancestor of the White-cheeked Geese (Hawaiian Goose, Canada Goose, Cackling Goose and Barnacle Goose) and the ancestor of the Brent Goose hybridized with Red-breasted Goose. One hybridization network suggests a hybrid origin for the Red-breasted Goose, but this scenario seems unlikely and it not supported by the D-statistic analysis. The complex, highly reticulated evolutionary history of the genus Anser hampered the estimation of ancient hybridization events by means of hybridization networks. The reconstruction of historical effective population sizes shows that most species showed a steady increase during the Pliocene and Pleistocene. These large effective population sizes might have facilitated contact between diverging goose species, resulting in the establishment of hybrid zones and consequent gene flow. Our analyses suggest that the evolutionary history of the True Geese is influenced by introgressive hybridization. The approach that we have used, based on genome-wide phylogenetic incongruence and network analyses, will be a useful procedure to reconstruct the complex evolutionary histories of many naturally hybridizing species groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 23%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 22%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 24 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2023.
All research outputs
#691,133
of 25,448,590 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#138
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,343
of 325,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#6
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,448,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.