An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern

Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Shawna J. Zimmerman [verfasserIn] Cameron L. Aldridge [verfasserIn] Sara J. Oyler-McCance [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: BMC Genomics - BMC, 2003, 21(2020), 1, Seite 16
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:21 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; pages:16

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ000876194

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ000876194
003	DE-627
005	20230503145257.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230225s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ000876194
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a TP248.13-248.65
050		0	\|a QH426-470
100	0		\|a Shawna J. Zimmerman \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	3	\|a An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.
650		4	\|a Population structure
650		4	\|a Population genetics
650		4	\|a Evolutionarily significant units
650		4	\|a Conservation
650		4	\|a Genomics
650		4	\|a Microsatellites
653		0	\|a Biotechnology
653		0	\|a Genetics
700	0		\|a Cameron L. Aldridge \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sara J. Oyler-McCance \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t BMC Genomics \|d BMC, 2003 \|g 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 \|w (DE-627)326644954 \|w (DE-600)2041499-7 \|x 14712164 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:21 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g pages:16
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 21 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|h 16

Indexfelder

author_variant	s j z sjz c l a cla s j o m sjom
matchkey_str	article:14712164:2020----::nmiiacmaiooppltogntcnlsssnmcoaeltadndtfr
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	TP
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 doi (DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Shawna J. Zimmerman verfasserin aut An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics Cameron L. Aldridge verfasserin aut Sara J. Oyler-McCance verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 16
spelling	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 doi (DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Shawna J. Zimmerman verfasserin aut An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics Cameron L. Aldridge verfasserin aut Sara J. Oyler-McCance verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 16
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 doi (DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Shawna J. Zimmerman verfasserin aut An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics Cameron L. Aldridge verfasserin aut Sara J. Oyler-McCance verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 16
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 doi (DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Shawna J. Zimmerman verfasserin aut An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics Cameron L. Aldridge verfasserin aut Sara J. Oyler-McCance verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 16
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 doi (DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Shawna J. Zimmerman verfasserin aut An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms. Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics Cameron L. Aldridge verfasserin aut Sara J. Oyler-McCance verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 16
language	English
source	In BMC Genomics 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16
sourceStr	In BMC Genomics 21(2020), 1, Seite 16 volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:16
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites Biotechnology Genetics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC Genomics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Shawna J. Zimmerman @@aut@@ Cameron L. Aldridge @@aut@@ Sara J. Oyler-McCance @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326644954
id	DOAJ000876194
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ000876194</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503145257.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ000876194</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP248.13-248.65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH426-470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shawna J. Zimmerman</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Population structure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Population genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evolutionarily significant units</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Conservation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Genomics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Microsatellites</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biotechnology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cameron L. Aldridge</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sara J. Oyler-McCance</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Genomics</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1, Seite 16</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041499-7</subfield><subfield code="x">14712164</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">16</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	T - Technology
author	Shawna J. Zimmerman
spellingShingle	Shawna J. Zimmerman misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Population structure misc Population genetics misc Evolutionarily significant units misc Conservation misc Genomics misc Microsatellites misc Biotechnology misc Genetics An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
authorStr	Shawna J. Zimmerman
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326644954
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	TP248
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14712164
topic_title	TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern Population structure Population genetics Evolutionarily significant units Conservation Genomics Microsatellites
topic	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Population structure misc Population genetics misc Evolutionarily significant units misc Conservation misc Genomics misc Microsatellites misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
topic_unstemmed	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Population structure misc Population genetics misc Evolutionarily significant units misc Conservation misc Genomics misc Microsatellites misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
topic_browse	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Population structure misc Population genetics misc Evolutionarily significant units misc Conservation misc Genomics misc Microsatellites misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC Genomics
hierarchy_parent_id	326644954
hierarchy_top_title	BMC Genomics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7
title	An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ000876194 (DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba
title_full	An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
author_sort	Shawna J. Zimmerman
journal	BMC Genomics
journalStr	BMC Genomics
callnumber-first-code	T
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	16
author_browse	Shawna J. Zimmerman Cameron L. Aldridge Sara J. Oyler-McCance
container_volume	21
class	TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Shawna J. Zimmerman
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and snp data for a species of conservation concern
callnumber	TP248.13-248.65
title_auth	An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
abstract	Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.
abstractGer	Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9 https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164
remote_bool	true
author2	Cameron L. Aldridge Sara J. Oyler-McCance
author2Str	Cameron L. Aldridge Sara J. Oyler-McCance
ppnlink	326644954
callnumber-subject	TP - Chemical Technology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9
callnumber-a	TP248.13-248.65
up_date	2024-07-03T17:02:22.811Z
_version_	1803578132725235712
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ000876194</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503145257.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ000876194</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP248.13-248.65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH426-470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shawna J. Zimmerman</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Use of genomic tools to characterize wildlife populations has increased in recent years. In the past, genetic characterization has been accomplished with more traditional genetic tools (e.g., microsatellites). The explosion of genomic methods and the subsequent creation of large SNP datasets has led to the promise of increased precision in population genetic parameter estimates and identification of demographically and evolutionarily independent groups, as well as questions about the future usefulness of the more traditional genetic tools. At present, few empirical comparisons of population genetic parameters and clustering analyses performed with microsatellites and SNPs have been conducted. Results Here we used microsatellite and SNP data generated from Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) samples to evaluate concordance of the results obtained from each dataset for common metrics of genetic diversity (H O, H E, F IS, A R) and differentiation (F ST, G ST, D Jost). Additionally, we evaluated clustering of individuals using putatively neutral (SNPs and microsatellites), putatively adaptive, and a combined dataset of putatively neutral and adaptive loci. We took particular interest in the conservation implications of any differences. Generally, we found high concordance between microsatellites and SNPs for H E, F IS, A R, and all differentiation estimates. Although there was strong correlation between metrics from SNPs and microsatellites, the magnitude of the diversity and differentiation metrics were quite different in some cases. Clustering analyses also showed similar patterns, though SNP data was able to cluster individuals into more distinct groups. Importantly, clustering analyses with SNP data suggest strong demographic independence among the six distinct populations of Gunnison sage-grouse with some indication of evolutionary independence in two or three populations; a finding that was not revealed by microsatellite data. Conclusion We demonstrate that SNPs have three main advantages over microsatellites: more precise estimates of population-level diversity, higher power to identify groups in clustering methods, and the ability to consider local adaptation. This study adds to a growing body of work comparing the use of SNPs and microsatellites to evaluate genetic diversity and differentiation for a species of conservation concern with relatively high population structure and using the most common method of obtaining SNP genotypes for non-model organisms.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Population structure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Population genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evolutionarily significant units</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Conservation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Genomics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Microsatellites</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biotechnology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cameron L. Aldridge</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sara J. Oyler-McCance</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Genomics</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1, Seite 16</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041499-7</subfield><subfield code="x">14712164</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2f300e0006a941b49dfcb73daef1e8ba</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-06783-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">16</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399349

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?