Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 465

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A quantitative review of heterozygosity–fitness correlations in animal populations

Open access
CHAPMAN, J. R., NAKAGAWA, S., COLTMAN, D. W., SLATE, J., SHELDON, B. C.·2009·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

The ease of obtaining genotypic data from wild populations has renewed interest in the relationship between individual genetic diversity and fitness‐related traits (heterozygosity–fitness correlations, or HFC). Here we present a comprehensive meta‐analysis of HFC studies using powerful multivariate techniques which account for nonindependence of data. We compare these findings with those from univariate techniques, and test the influence of a range of factors hypothesized to influence the strength of HFCs. We found small but significantly positive effect sizes for life‐history, morphological, and physiological traits; while theory predicts higher mean effect sizes for life‐history traits, effect size did not differ consistently with trait type. Newly proposed measures of variation were no more powerful at detecting relationships than multilocus heterozygosity, and populations predicted to have elevated inbreeding variance did not exhibit higher mean effect sizes. Finally, we found evidence for publication bias, with studies reporting weak, nonsignificant effects being under‐represented in the literature. In general, our review shows that HFC studies do not generally reveal patterns predicted by population genetic theory, and are of small effect (less than 1% of the variance in phenotypic characters explained). Future studies should use more genetic marker data and utilize sampling designs that shed more light on the biological mechanisms that may modulate the strength of association, for example by contrasting the strength of HFCs in mainland and island populations of the same species, investigating the role of environmental stress, or by considering how selection has shaped the traits under investigation.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04247.x

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 465

Metadata

Authors
CHAPMAN, J. R., NAKAGAWA, S., COLTMAN, D. W., SLATE, J., & SHELDON, B. C.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06-22
Volume
18
Issue
13
Pages
2746-2765
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2100327440
Cited by
465
References
9
FWCI
35.26
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: A quantitative review of heterozygosity–fitness correlations in animal populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04247.x
The paper
CHAPMAN, J. R., NAKAGAWA, S., COLTMAN, D. W., SLATE, J., & SHELDON, B. C. (2009). A quantitative review of heterozygosity–fitness correlations in animal populations. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04247.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.