The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants
Abstract
A compilation was made of 307 studies using nuclear DNA markers for evaluating among‐ and within‐population diversity in wild angiosperms and gymnosperms. Estimates derived by the dominantly inherited markers (RAPD, AFLP, ISSR) are very similar and may be directly comparable. STMS analysis yields almost three times higher values for within‐population diversity whereas among‐population diversity estimates are similar to those derived by the dominantly inherited markers. Number of sampled plants per population and number of scored microsatellite DNA alleles are correlated with some of the population genetics parameters. In addition, maximum geographical distance between sampled populations has a strong positive effect on among‐population diversity. As previously verified with allozyme data, RAPD‐ and STMS‐based analyses show that long‐lived, outcrossing, late successional taxa retain most of their genetic variability within populations. By contrast, annual, selfing and/or early successional taxa allocate most of the genetic variability among populations. Estimates for among‐ and within‐population diversity, respectively, were negatively correlated. The only major discrepancy between allozymes and STMS on the one hand, and RAPD on the other hand, concerns geographical range; within‐population diversity was strongly affected when the former methods were used but not so in the RAPD‐based studies. Direct comparisons between the different methods, when applied to the same plant material, indicate large similarities between the dominant markers and somewhat lower similarity with the STMS‐based data, presumably due to insufficient number of analysed microsatellite DNA loci in many studies.
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
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E., & Quattro, J. M. (1992) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/131.2.479 · Cited by 13,929
Cited by
Almost Forgotten or Latest Practice? AFLP applications, analyses and advances
Meudt, H. M., & Clarke, A. C. (2007) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.02.001 · Cited by 615
Longevity of clonal plants: why it matters and how to measure it
de Witte, L. C., & Stöcklin, J. (2010) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcq191 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Nybom, H.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04-06
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1143-1155
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W1921511347
- Cited by
- 1,866
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.28
- 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: Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02141.x
- The paper
- Nybom, H. (2004). Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02141.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.