The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflike canids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci.
Abstract
Genetic divergence and gene flow among closely related populations are difficult to measure because mutation rates of most nuclear loci are so low that new mutations have not had sufficient time to appear and become fixed. Microsatellite loci are repeat arrays of simple sequences that have high mutation rates and are abundant in the eukaryotic genome. Large population samples can be screened for variation by using the polymerase chain reaction and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis to separate alleles. We analyzed 10 microsatellite loci to quantify genetic differentiation and hybridization in three species of North American wolflike canids. We expected to find a pattern of genetic differentiation by distance to exist among wolflike canid populations, because of the finite dispersal distances of individuals. Moreover, we predicted that, because wolflike canids are highly mobile, hybrid zones may be more extensive and show substantial changes in allele frequency, relative to nonhybridizing populations. We demonstrate that wolves and coyotes do not show a pattern of genetic differentiation by distance. Genetic subdivision in coyotes, as measured by theta and Gst, is not significantly different from zero, reflecting persistent gene flow among newly established populations. However, gray wolves show significant subdivision that may be either due to drift in past Ice Age refugia populations or a result of other causes. Finally, in areas where gray wolves and coyotes hybridize, allele frequencies of gray wolves are affected, but those of coyotes are not. Past hybridization between the two species in the south-central United States may account for the origin of the red wolf.
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
Cites
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
SAMPLING VARIANCES OF HETEROZYGOSITY AND GENETIC DISTANCE
Nei, M., & Roychoudhury, A. K. (1974) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/76.2.379 · Cited by 1,641
Cited by
Luikart, G., & Cornuet, J.-M. (1998) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96388.x · Cited by 1,206
Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: a critical review
MORITZ, C. (1994) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.1994.tb00080.x · Cited by 787
Detecting Population Expansion and Decline Using Microsatellites
Beaumont, M. A. (1999) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/153.4.2013 · Cited by 615
Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness
Blouin, M. S., PARSONS, M., LACAILLE, V., & LOTZ, S. (1996) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1996.00094.x · Cited by 423
Molecular and Evolutionary History of Melanism in North American Gray Wolves
Anderson, T. M., vonHoldt, B. M., Candille, S. I., Musiani, M., Greco, C., Stahler, D. R., Smith, D. W., Padhukasahasram, B., Randi, E., Leonard, J. A., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1165448 · Cited by 416
Self-citation
Metadata
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 553-70
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2209990260
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.78
- 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: Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflike canids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040137
- The paper
- Patterns of differentiation and hybridization in North American wolflike canids, revealed by analysis of microsatellite loci. (1994). Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040137
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.