Additional file 4: Table S1. Spearman correlation analysis between genomic inbreeding derived from ROH coverage (FROH) and observed heterozygosity (Ho), effective size (Ne) and inbreeding coefficients calculated with PLINK i.e. Fhet, Fhat1, Fhat2 and Fhat3. The data represent the statistical analysis between genomic inbreeding and inbreeding coefficients
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Additional file 4: Table S3. Diversity parameters: averaged observed and expected heterozygosities
Additional file 5: Table S2. Inbreeding coefficients (i.e. Fhet, Fhat1, Fhat2 and Fhat3) for populat...
Additional file 3: Figure S3. Relationship between observed heterozygosity versus (left) ROH coverag...
Additional file 2: Figure S2. PCA plot of 25 insular and continental goats for coordinate PC1 agains...
Additional file 1: Table S1. Animals used for the analyses. Breed symbol, name and number (N). The c...
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Geographic locations of the insular and continental breeds considered ...
Additional file 3. Comparison of ROH across the breeds raised in different countries. The higher the...
Additional file 1: Table S1. Summary statistics calculated over the whole set of AdaptMap goat popul...
Additional file 2: Table S2. Descriptive statistics of the genetic diversity of the 20 microsatellit...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Additional file 4. Graphical representation of ROH and iHS results at the breed level of the signals...
Additional file 3: Table S1. Environmental variables considered for the landscape genomic analysis. ...
The AdaptMap consortium.[Background]: Patterns of homozygosity can be influenced by several factors,...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Additional file 4: Table S3. Diversity parameters: averaged observed and expected heterozygosities
Additional file 5: Table S2. Inbreeding coefficients (i.e. Fhet, Fhat1, Fhat2 and Fhat3) for populat...
Additional file 3: Figure S3. Relationship between observed heterozygosity versus (left) ROH coverag...
Additional file 2: Figure S2. PCA plot of 25 insular and continental goats for coordinate PC1 agains...
Additional file 1: Table S1. Animals used for the analyses. Breed symbol, name and number (N). The c...
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Geographic locations of the insular and continental breeds considered ...
Additional file 3. Comparison of ROH across the breeds raised in different countries. The higher the...
Additional file 1: Table S1. Summary statistics calculated over the whole set of AdaptMap goat popul...
Additional file 2: Table S2. Descriptive statistics of the genetic diversity of the 20 microsatellit...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Additional file 4. Graphical representation of ROH and iHS results at the breed level of the signals...
Additional file 3: Table S1. Environmental variables considered for the landscape genomic analysis. ...
The AdaptMap consortium.[Background]: Patterns of homozygosity can be influenced by several factors,...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Both natural and artificial selection are among the main driving forces shaping genetic variation ac...
Additional file 4: Table S3. Diversity parameters: averaged observed and expected heterozygosities