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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance
SIMES, R. J. (1986) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/73.3.751 · Cited by 2,396
Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations
Hill, W. G., & Robertson, A. (1968) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf01245622 · Cited by 2,035
Data and Theory Point to Mainly Additive Genetic Variance for Complex Traits
Hill, W. G., Goddard, M. E., & Visscher, P. M. (2008) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000008 · Cited by 1,039
Nam, I., Mengersen, K., & Garthwaite, P. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1410 · Cited by 153
Non‐significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise?
(2003) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.12353.x · Cited by 75
Meta-analysis, can it ever fail?
Kotiaho, J. S., & Tomkins, J. L. (2002) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960316.x · Cited by 52
Cited by
Understanding Inbreeding Depression, Purging, and Genetic Rescue
Hedrick, P. W., & Garcia-Dorado, A. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.005 · Cited by 668
The inflated significance of neutral genetic diversity in conservation genetics
Teixeira, J. C., & Huber, C. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2015096118 · Cited by 474
The genetic effects of roads: A review of empirical evidence
Holderegger, R., & Di Giulio, M. (2010) · Basic and Applied Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.006 · Cited by 391
Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses: its magnitude and implications
Senior, A. M., Grueber, C. E., Kamiya, T., Lagisz, M., O'Dwyer, K., Santos, E. S. A., & Nakagawa, S. (2016) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.1591 · Cited by 299
Self-citationNonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses
Noble, D. W. A., Lagisz, M., O'dea, R. E., & Nakagawa, S. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14031 · Cited by 267
Self-citation
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.