MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating selfing rates from reconstructed pedigrees using multilocus genotype data

2011· article· en· W1944913488 on OpenAlexaff
Jinliang Wang, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby, Kermit Ritland

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsSelfingBiologyInbreedingLinkage disequilibriumGeneticsPedigree chartPopulationEvolutionary biologyMating systemPopulation geneticsStatisticsGenotypeMatingHaplotypeMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several methods have been developed to estimate the selfing rate of a population from a sample of individuals genotyped for several marker loci. These methods can be based on homozygosity excess (or inbreeding), identity disequilibrium, progeny array (PA) segregation or population assignment incorporating partial selfing. Progeny array-based method is generally the best because it is not subject to some assumptions made by other methods (such as lack of misgenotyping, absence of biparental inbreeding and presence of inbreeding equilibrium), and it can reveal other facets of a mixed-mating system such as patterns of shared paternity. However, in practice, it is often difficult to obtain PAs, especially for animal species. In this study, we propose a method to reconstruct the pedigree of a sample of individuals taken from a monoecious diploid population practicing mixed mating, using multilocus genotypic data. Selfing and outcrossing events are then detected when an individual derives from identical parents and from two distinct parents, respectively. Selfing rate is estimated by the proportion of selfed offspring in the reconstructed pedigree of a sample of individuals. The method enjoys many advantages of the PA method, but without the need of a priori family structure, although such information, if available, can be utilized to improve the inference. Furthermore, the new method accommodates genotyping errors, estimates allele frequencies jointly and is robust to the presence of biparental inbreeding and inbreeding disequilibrium. Both simulated and empirical data were analysed by the new and previous methods to compare their statistical properties and accuracies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207