↓ Skip to main content

A Test of the ‘Genetic Rescue’ Technique Using Bottlenecked Donor Populations of Drosophila melanogaster

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
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 (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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 Test of the ‘Genetic Rescue’ Technique Using Bottlenecked Donor Populations of Drosophila melanogaster
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0043113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sol Heber, James V. Briskie, Luis A. Apiolaza

Abstract

We produced replicated experimental lines of inbred fruit flies Drosophila melanogaster to test the effects of crossing different bottlenecked populations as a method of 'genetic rescue' for endangered species lacking outbred donor populations. Two strains differing in the origin of the founders were maintained as isolated populations in a laboratory environment. After two generations of controlled full-sib matings, the resulting inbred fruit flies had significantly reduced breeding success and survival rates. However, crosses between the two bottlenecked strains reversed the effects of inbreeding and led to increases in breeding success and survival that persisted into the second generation of hybrid offspring. In contrast, crosses within each strain (but between different replicate lines) resulted in only slight improvements in some fitness components, and this positive trend was reversed in the second generation. This experiment highlights the potential value of translocations between different inbred populations of endangered species as a tool to mitigate the negative effects of inbreeding, but this benefit may depend upon the origin of the populations. Our results also confirm the importance of maintaining adequate levels of genetic variation within populations and that severely bottlenecked populations should not be discounted as possible donors in genetic rescue programs for endangered species.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
China 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 15%
Environmental Science 6 10%
Unspecified 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 7 12%
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 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,240,427
of 25,101,232 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#98,419
of 217,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,161
of 175,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,428
of 4,286 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,101,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 175,514 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 4,286 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 64% of its contemporaries.