Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recombination rate variation and speciation: theoretical predictions and empirical results from rabbits and mice

Open access
Nachman, Michael W., Payseur, Bret A.·2012·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Recently diverged taxa may continue to exchange genes. A number of models of speciation with gene flow propose that the frequency of gene exchange will be lower in genomic regions of low recombination and that these regions will therefore be more differentiated. However, several population-genetic models that focus on selection at linked sites also predict greater differentiation in regions of low recombination simply as a result of faster sorting of ancestral alleles even in the absence of gene flow. Moreover, identifying the actual amount of gene flow from patterns of genetic variation is tricky, because both ancestral polymorphism and migration lead to shared variation between recently diverged taxa. New analytic methods have been developed to help distinguish ancestral polymorphism from migration. Along with a growing number of datasets of multi-locus DNA sequence variation, these methods have spawned a renewed interest in speciation models with gene flow. Here, we review both speciation and population-genetic models that make explicit predictions about how the rate of recombination influences patterns of genetic variation within and between species. We then compare those predictions with empirical data of DNA sequence variation in rabbits and mice. We find strong support for the prediction that genomic regions experiencing low levels of recombination are more differentiated. In most cases, reduced gene flow appears to contribute to the pattern, although disentangling the relative contribution of reduced gene flow and selection at linked sites remains a challenge. We suggest fruitful areas of research that might help distinguish between different models.

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 · 10.1098/rstb.2011.0249

Cites

8 of 8 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

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 376

Metadata

Authors
Nachman, M. W., & Payseur, B. A.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2012-02-05
Volume
367
Issue
1587
Pages
409-421
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2159580843
Cited by
376
References
8
FWCI
9.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Recombination rate variation and speciation: theoretical predictions and empirical results from rabbits and mice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2011.0249
The paper
Nachman, M. W., & Payseur, B. A. (2012). Recombination rate variation and speciation: theoretical predictions and empirical results from rabbits and mice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0249

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.