Population Genetic Structure Sample Clauses

Population Genetic Structure. Two Bayesian, model-based approaches were taken to provide basic information regarding raccoon genetic structure, specifically in the context of avoiding undetected population structure that might obscure the results, and to examine potential differences in rabies infection if more than one population was found (i.e. potential local adaptation). The first method used Structure (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2000) to identify the most probable number of populations in the study area. Structure can be used to analyze multi-locus genotypic data alone or in conjunction with geographic information, albeit indirectly. In the latter case, the user assigns individuals to “K” populations based on their geographic sampling locations and tests to see if the population assignments reflect geographic structure. Since Structure cannot directly include latitude/longitude coordinates, the analysis was based solely on the genetic data. Simulations were performed in triplicate with 2,000,000 iterations (100,000 dememorization steps) for 1-5 possible populations
Population Genetic Structure. Each of the replicate Structure runs resulted in similar output values, indicating overall parameter stability. Based on the posterior probability values calculated from the data, the highest support was found for 2 raccoon populations in northeastern Ohio (Pr(K=2) = 0.82; Table 2.3). Table 2.3 Number of populations (K) estimated using Structure. The posterior probability of the number of populations is given by Pr(K), which is determined using the natural log of the probability of the data (X) given the number of populations (K), ln Pr(X|K). 1 -4198.8 0.18 2 -4197.3 0.82 3 -4205.3 0.0002 4 -4229.0 1.39 x 10-14 5 -4285.9 4.95 x 10-39 One hundred raccoons were assigned to population 1 whereas 82 raccoons were assigned to population 2 (Figure 2.2). Three individuals were equivocal with respect to their population assignment. The two potential populations overlapped geographically in more than 30% of the sampling area. Alternatively, the Geneland analysis identified a single population in the study area (Figure 2.3) based on the average posterior density of the 3 simulations (0.6413). Geneland indicated that the next most likely scenario was the existence of 2 populations, however, the average posterior density of the 3 simulations was much lower (0.1807) for this situation. In general, average posterior density values declined with increasing values of K (Figure 2.3). Figure 2.2 Allocation of raccoons into 2 populations, as suggested by the Structure analysis. Population 1 (blue) contained 100 raccoons, and population 2 (red) contained
Population Genetic Structure. An accurate representation of raccoon population genetic structure is necessary to discern between alternative hypotheses; therefore, Bayesian model-based clustering algorithms implemented in two programs, Structure (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2000) and Geneland (Xxxxxxx et al. 2005), were used to determine the most probable number of raccoon populations in the eastern US, in the areas surrounding the hypothesized suture-zones. One potential disadvantage of the Structure program is that in certain instances, linkage disequilibrium, deviations from Xxxxx-Xxxxxxxx equilibrium, null alleles, isolation by distance, and differences in sample size between clusters can all confound the analysis and lead to a potential overestimation of populations or genetic clusters (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2007; Hubisz et al. 2009); therefore, use of a second method like the spatially-explicit Geneland is recommended. Although Structure can incorporate geographic information indirectly, it is a crude measure whereby the user assigns individuals to K populations based on their geographic location, and the resulting output is compared with what one might expect if there was indeed geographic structure. Therefore, Structure is generally regarded as a nonspatial method. As a result, simulations solely on the genetic data were performed in triplicate with 5,000,000 iterations (500,000 dememorization steps) for a possibility of 1 to 10 populations (K) under a model of admixture. The average natural log of the probability of the data for each possible number of populations was then used to estimate the posterior probability of the most likely number of populations based on Bayes’ Rule, as described in the Structure user guide (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2007). Geneland, on the other hand, can simultaneously incorporate spatially explicit data (i.e. latitude/longitude coordinates) and genetic data during computations. Therefore, Geneland runs were based on the microsatellite data and an associated spatial location (latitude/longitude) for each sample. As above, simulations were performed in triplicate with 5,000,000 iterations (500,000 dememorization steps) for a possibility of 1 to 10 populations (K). The most probable number of populations was then chosen based on the posterior density averaged over the 3 Geneland runs. After determining the most probable number of populations, an Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) was used to examine levels of genetic differentiation between the populations and to confirm...

Related to Population Genetic Structure

  • Population The Population shall be defined as all Paid Claims during the 12-month period covered by the Claims Review.

  • Target Population TREATMENT FOR ADULT (TRA) Target Population

  • Hepatitis B Vaccine Where the Hospital identifies high risk areas where employees are exposed to Hepatitis B, the Hospital will provide, at no cost to the employees, a Hepatitis B vaccine.

  • Study Population Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: minimum 21 days/3 weeksuntil patient's weight >2000g, averaged 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months following enterostomy closure (12- month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 months of overall study duration).

  • Screening Requirements Extendicare shall ensure that all prospective and current Covered Persons are not Ineligible Persons, by implementing the following screening requirements: a. Extendicare shall screen all prospective Covered Persons against the Exclusion Lists prior to engaging their services and, as part of the hiring or contracting process, shall require such Covered Persons to disclose whether they are Ineligible Persons. b. Extendicare shall screen all Covered Persons against the Exclusion Lists within 90 days after the Effective Date and on an annual basis thereafter. c. Extendicare shall implement a policy requiring all Covered Persons to disclose immediately any debarment, exclusion, suspension, or other event that makes that person an Ineligible Person. Nothing in Section III.G affects Extendicare’s responsibility to refrain from (or its liability for) billing Federal health care programs for items or services furnished, ordered, or prescribed by excluded persons. Extendicare understands that items or services furnished by excluded persons are not payable by Federal health care programs and that Extendicare may be liable for overpayments and/or criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions for employing or contracting with an excluded person regardless of whether Extendicare meets the requirements of Section III.G.

  • Green Economy/Carbon Footprint a) The Supplier/Service Provider has in its bid provided Transnet with an understanding of the Supplier’s/Service Provider’s position with regard to issues such as waste disposal, recycling and energy conservation.

  • Infectious Diseases The Employer and the Union desire to arrest the spread of infectious diseases in the nursing home. To achieve this objective, the Joint Health and Safety Committee may review and offer input into infection control programs and protocols including surveillance, outbreak control, isolation, precautions, worker education and training, and personal protective equipment. The Employer will provide training and ongoing education in communicable disease recognition, use of personal protective equipment, decontamination of equipment, and disposal of hazardous waste.

  • Alignment with Modernization Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities The activities and services that the LPHA has agreed to deliver under this Program Element align with Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities and the public health accountability metrics (if applicable), as follows (see Oregon’s Public Health Modernization Manual, (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/oha/PH/ABOUT/TASKFORCE/Documents/public_health_modernization_man ual.pdf): a. Foundational Programs and Capabilities (As specified in Public Health Modernization Manual) b. The work in this Program Element helps Oregon’s governmental public health system achieve the following Public Health Accountability Metric, Health Outcome Measure: c. The work in this Program Element helps Oregon’s governmental public health system achieve the following Public Health Accountability Metric, Local Public Health Process Measure:

  • Human Leukocyte Antigen Testing This plan covers human leukocyte antigen testing for A, B, and DR antigens once per member per lifetime to establish a member’s bone marrow transplantation donor suitability in accordance with R.I. General Law §27-20-36. The testing must be performed in a facility that is: • accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks or its successors; and • licensed under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as it may be amended from time to time. At the time of testing, the person being tested must complete and sign an informed consent form that also authorizes the results of the test to be used for participation in the National Marrow Donor program.

  • Safety Measures Awarded vendor shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of employees on the worksite, and shall erect and properly maintain all necessary safeguards for protection of workers and the public. Awarded vendor shall post warning signs against all hazards created by the operation and work in progress. Proper precautions shall be taken pursuant to state law and standard practices to protect workers, general public and existing structures from injury or damage.