Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A genetic method for dating ancient genomes provides a direct estimate of human generation interval in the last 45,000 years

Moorjani, Priya, Sankararaman, Sriram, Fu, Qiaomei, Przeworski, Molly, Patterson, Nick, Reich, David·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Significance: We report a method for dating ancient human samples that uses the recombination clock. To infer the age of ancient genomes, we take advantage of the shared history of Neanderthal gene flow into non-Africans that occurred around 50,000 y ago and measure the amount of “missing evolution” in terms of recombination breakpoints in the ancient genome compared with present-day samples. We show that this method provides age estimates that are highly correlated to radiocarbon dates, thus documenting the promise of this approach. By studying the linear relationship between the dates of Neanderthal admixture and the radiocarbon dates, we obtain, to our knowledge, the first direct estimate of the historical generation interval of 26–30 y.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1514696113

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1016/j.tig.2014.07.007 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00394.x · DOI
  3. 10.1038/195984a0 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/sysbio/syt030 · DOI
  5. 10.1146/annurev-genom-031714-125740 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/nature10336 · DOI
  7. 10.1126/science.1188021 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.12.029 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1126/science.1245938 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1073/pnas.85.23.9119 · DOI
  11. 10.1126/science.1243518 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373 · DOI
  13. 10.1534/genetics.112.147330 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/nature09525 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/ng.2833 · DOI
  16. 10.1086/375453 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1073/pnas.1515798113 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/ng.2398 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/nature13621 · DOI
  20. 10.1126/science.1183439 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004790 · DOI
  22. 10.1126/science.1117196 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000336 · DOI
  24. C Bishop Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning Information Science and Statistics (Springer New York) corrected 2nd Ed. (2007).
  25. 10.1073/pnas.1519905112 · DOI
  26. 10.1126/science.aad2879 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Moorjani, P., Sankararaman, S., Fu, Q., Przeworski, M., Patterson, N., & Reich, D.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027;
  • Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;
  • Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA 02142;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-05-02
Volume
113
Issue
20
Pages
5652-5657
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
174
References
20
Language
en
Funders
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1F32GM115006-01)
  • DH | National Institute for Health Research (GM100233)

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