The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Abstract
A comparative study between microsatellite and allozyme markers was conducted on natural populations of resident brown trout (Salmo trutta) sampled over a reduced geographical scale and on hatchery strains. The higher level of polymorphism observed at microsatellite loci resulted in higher power of statistical tests for differentiation among population samples and for genotypic linkage disequilibrium. Genetic distances of Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards were on average two times larger for microsatellites than for allozymes but multilocus FST estimates computed over the entire set of populations were not significantly different for both categories of markers. Assignment tests of individual fish to the set of sampled populations demonstrated a much higher efficiency of microsatellites compared to allozymes. Pairwise multilocus FST estimates were significantly correlated to waterway distances and there was a significant tendency for the incorrectly classified individuals to be assigned to one of the nearest populations, indicating that isolation-by-distance acted significantly on brown trout populations. This increase of differentiation with distance was higher for allozymes than for microsatellites. Traditional measures of genetic differentiation (Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards' chord distance and FST) were compared for microsatellites to recently proposed statistics taking into account allele size differences (Goldstein's distance and PST). Using Goldstein's distance for neighbour-joining analysis did not improve the tree structure resolution. Multilocus estimates of PST and FST were not significantly different when computed over the entire set of populations but no significant correlation was detected between matrices of pairwise multilocus PST estimates and waterway distances.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bocedi, G., Palmer, S. C. F., Malchow, A., Zurell, D., Watts, K., & Travis, J. M. J. (2021) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05687 · Cited by 87
Basto, M. P., Santos-Reis, M., Simões, L., Grilo, C., Cardoso, L., Cortes, H., Bruford, M. W., & Fernandes, C. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145165 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- ESTOUP, A., ROUSSET, F., MICHALAKIS, Y., CORNUET, J. ‐., ADRIAMANGA, M., & GUYOMARD, R.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 339-353
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2024571203
- Cited by
- 474
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00362.x
- The paper
- ESTOUP, A., ROUSSET, F., MICHALAKIS, Y., CORNUET, J. ‐., ADRIAMANGA, M., & GUYOMARD, R. (1998). Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00362.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.