↓ Skip to main content

Pedigree-Free Estimates of Heritability in the Wild: Promising Prospects for Selfing Populations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Pedigree-Free Estimates of Heritability in the Wild: Promising Prospects for Selfing Populations
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0066983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurene Gay, Mathieu Siol, Joelle Ronfort

Abstract

Estimating the genetic variance available for traits informs us about a population's ability to evolve in response to novel selective challenges. In selfing species, theory predicts a loss of genetic diversity that could lead to an evolutionary dead-end, but empirical support remains scarce. Genetic variability in a trait is estimated by correlating the phenotypic resemblance with the proportion of the genome that two relatives share identical by descent ('realized relatedness'). The latter is traditionally predicted from pedigrees (Φ A : expected value) but can also be estimated using molecular markers (average number of alleles shared). Nevertheless, evolutionary biologists, unlike animal breeders, remain cautious about using marker-based relatedness coefficients to study complex phenotypic traits in populations. In this paper, we review published results comparing five different pedigree-free methods and use simulations to test individual-based models (hereafter called animal models) using marker-based relatedness coefficients, with a special focus on the influence of mating systems. Our literature review confirms that Ritland's regression method is unreliable, but suggests that animal models with marker-based estimates of relatedness and genomic selection are promising and that more testing is required. Our simulations show that using molecular markers instead of pedigrees in animal models seriously worsens the estimation of heritability in outcrossing populations, unless a very large number of loci is available. In selfing populations the results are less biased. More generally, populations with high identity disequilibrium (consanguineous or bottlenecked populations) could be propitious for using marker-based animal models, but are also more likely to deviate from the standard assumptions of quantitative genetics models (non-additive variance).

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 91 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Professor 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 59%
Environmental Science 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#6,789,348
of 23,914,787 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#86,085
of 204,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,823
of 199,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,677
of 4,716 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,914,787 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 204,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 199,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,716 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.