Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Pedigree-based inbreeding coefficient explains more variation in fitness than heterozygosity at 160 microsatellites in a wild bird population.

Proceedings. Biological sciences - 15 Mar 2017

Nietlisbach Pirmin, Keller Lukas F, Camenisch Glauco, Guillaume Frédéric, Arcese Peter, Reid Jane M, Postma Erik

Abstract excerpt

Although the pedigree-based inbreeding coefficient F predicts the expected proportion of an individual's genome that is identical-by-descent (IBD), heterozygosity at genetic markers captures Mendelian sampling variation and thereby provides an estimate of realized IBD. Realized IBD should hence explain more variation in fitness than their pedigree-based expectations, but how many markers are required to achieve...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Genetic Fitness
Share to Genetic Markers

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy Delete account & data About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Genotype

Share to Inbreeding

Share to Microsatellite Repeats

Share to Pedigree

Share to Phenotype

Share to Sparrows

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 28250184
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2763
PMCID: PMC5360928

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-08.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence. Graph snapshot: 2026-09-29.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Pedigree-based inbreeding coefficient explains more variation in fitness than heterozygosity at 160 microsatellites in a wild bird population.PMID 28250184Read ↗

A high-quality pedigree and genetic markers both reveal inbreeding depression for quality but not survival in a cooperative mammal.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Estimating genome-wide heterozygosity: effects of demographic history and marker type.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?Semantic proximity Read ↗

Molecular and pedigree measures of relatedness provide similar estimates of inbreeding depression in a bottlenecked population.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Pedigree-free estimates of heritability in the wild: promising prospects for selfing populations.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Heterozygosity is unrelated to adult fitness measures in a large, noninbred population of great tits (Parus major).Semantic proximity Read ↗

An evaluation of inbreeding measures using a whole-genome sequenced cattle pedigree.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Comparing genome-based estimates of relatedness for use in pedigree-based conservation management.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Genomic signatures of inbreeding in a critically endangered parrot, the kākāpō.Semantic proximity Read ↗

What should we weigh to estimate heterozygosity, alleles or loci?Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.