↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the linkage-disequilibrium method for the estimation of effective population size when generations overlap: an empirical case

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Evaluation of the linkage-disequilibrium method for the estimation of effective population size when generations overlap: an empirical case
Published in
BMC Genomics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2167-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Saura, Albert Tenesa, John A. Woolliams, Almudena Fernández, Beatriz Villanueva

Abstract

Within the genetic methods for estimating effective population size (N e ), the method based on linkage disequilibrium (LD) has advantages over other methods, although its accuracy when applied to populations with overlapping generations is a matter of controversy. It is also unclear the best way to account for mutation and sample size when this method is implemented. Here we have addressed the applicability of this method using genome-wide information when generations overlap by profiting from having available a complete and accurate pedigree from an experimental population of Iberian pigs. Precise pedigree-based estimates of N e were considered as a baseline against which to compare LD-based estimates. We assumed six different statistical models that varied in the adjustments made for mutation and sample size. The approach allowed us to determine the most suitable statistical model of adjustment when the LD method is used for species with overlapping generations. A novel approach used here was to treat different generations as replicates of the same population in order to assess the error of the LD-based N e estimates. LD-based N e estimates obtained by estimating the mutation parameter from the data and by correcting sample size using the 1/2n term were the closest to pedigree-based estimates. The N e at the time of the foundation of the herd (26 generations ago) was 20.8 ± 3.7 (average and SD across replicates), while the pedigree-based estimate was 21. From that time on, this trend was in good agreement with that followed by pedigree-based N e . Our results showed that when using genome-wide information, the LD method is accurate and broadly applicable to small populations even when generations overlap. This supports the use of the method for estimating N e when pedigree information is unavailable in order to effectively monitor and manage populations and to early detect population declines. To our knowledge this is the first study using replicates of empirical data to evaluate the applicability of the LD method by comparing results with accurate pedigree-based estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Computer Science 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,828,066
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,141
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,883
of 282,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#257
of 390 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 282,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 390 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.