The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recombination in the threespine stickleback genome—patterns and consequences
Open accessAbstract
Heterogeneity in recombination rate may strongly influence genome evolution and entail methodological challenges to genomic investigation. Nevertheless, a solid understanding of these issues awaits detailed information across a broad range of taxa. Based on 282 F2 individuals and 1872 single nucleotide polymorphisms, we characterize recombination in the threespine stickleback fish genome. We find an average genome‐wide recombination rate of 3.11 c m/Mb. Crossover frequencies are dramatically elevated in the chromosome peripheries as compared to the centres, and are consistent with one obligate crossover per chromosome (but not chromosome arm). Along the sex chromosome, we show that recombination is restricted to a small pseudoautosomal domain of c. 2 Mb, spanning only 10% of that chromosome. Comparing female to male RAD sequence coverage allows us to identify two discrete levels of degeneration on the Y chromosome, one of these ‘evolutionary strata’ coinciding with a previously inferred inverted region. Using polymorphism data from two young (<10 000 years old) ecologically diverged lake‐stream population pairs, we demonstrate that recombination rate correlates with both the magnitude of allele frequency shifts between populations and levels of genetic diversity within populations. These associations reflect genome‐wide heterogeneity in the influence of selection on linked sites. We further find a strong relationship between recombination rate and GC content, possibly driven by GC‐biased gene conversion. Overall, we highlight that heterogeneity in recombination rate has profound consequences on genome evolution and deserves wider recognition in marker‐based genomic analyses.
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
The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene
Smith, J. M., & Haigh, J. (1974) · Genetical Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672300014634 · Cited by 3,415
International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03154 · Cited by 2,750
Cited by
Genotyping‐by‐sequencing in ecological and conservation genomics
Narum, S. R., Buerkle, C. A., Davey, J. W., Miller, M. R., & Hohenlohe, P. A. (2013) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12350 · Cited by 565
Variation in recombination frequency and distribution across eukaryotes: patterns and processes
Stapley, J., Feulner, P. G. D., Johnston, S. E., Santure, A. W., & Smadja, C. M. (2017) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0455 · Cited by 507
Making sense of genomic islands of differentiation in light of speciation
Wolf, J. B. W., & Ellegren, H. (2017) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2016.133 · Cited by 441
Bolnick, D. I., Barrett, R. D. H., Oke, K. B., Rennison, D. J., & Stuart, Y. E. (2018) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062240 · Cited by 328
Wright, A. E., Dean, R., Zimmer, F., & Mank, J. E. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12087 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Roesti, M., Moser, D., & Berner, D.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-22
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3014-3027
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W1993835751
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 in the threespine stickleback genome—patterns and consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.12322
- The paper
- Roesti, M., Moser, D., & Berner, D. (2013). Recombination in the threespine stickleback genome—patterns and consequences. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12322
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.