↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
29 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.
Article details
Title
Heterogeneity in Genetic Diversity among Non-Coding Loci Fails to Fit Neutral Coalescent Models of Population History
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0031972
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Inferring aspects of the population histories of species using coalescent analyses of non-coding nuclear DNA has grown in popularity. These inferences, such as divergence, gene flow, and changes in population size, assume that genetic data reflect simple population histories and neutral evolutionary processes. However, violating model assumptions can result in a poor fit between empirical data and the models. We sampled 22 nuclear intron sequences from at least 19 different chromosomes (a genomic transect) to test for deviations from selective neutrality in the gadwall (Anas strepera), a Holarctic duck. Nucleotide diversity among these loci varied by nearly two orders of magnitude (from 0.0004 to 0.029), and this heterogeneity could not be explained by differences in substitution rates alone. Using two different coalescent methods to infer models of population history and then simulating neutral genetic diversity under these models, we found that the observed among-locus heterogeneity in nucleotide diversity was significantly higher than expected for these simple models. Defining more complex models of population history demonstrated that a pre-divergence bottleneck was also unlikely to explain this heterogeneity. However, both selection and interspecific hybridization could account for the heterogeneity observed among loci. Regardless of the cause of the deviation, our results illustrate that violating key assumptions of coalescent models can mislead inferences of population history.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Mexico 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 26 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 69%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 February 2012.
All research outputs
#24,754,523
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#157,355
of 224,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,256
of 204,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,636
of 3,787 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 204,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,787 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.