Population size rescaling significantly biases outcomes of forward-in-time population genetic simulations.

IF 3.3 3区 生物学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetics Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1093/genetics/iyae180
Amjad Dabi, Daniel R Schrider
{"title":"Population size rescaling significantly biases outcomes of forward-in-time population genetic simulations.","authors":"Amjad Dabi, Daniel R Schrider","doi":"10.1093/genetics/iyae180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Simulations are an essential tool in all areas of population genetic research, used in tasks such as the validation of theoretical analysis and the study of complex evolutionary models. Forward-in-time simulations are especially flexible, allowing for various types of natural selection, complex genetic architectures, and non-Wright-Fisher dynamics. However, their intense computational requirements can be prohibitive to simulating large populations and genomes. A popular method to alleviate this burden is to scale down the population size by some scaling factor while scaling up the mutation rate, selection coefficients, and recombination rate by the same factor. However, this rescaling approach may in some cases bias simulation results. To investigate the manner and degree to which rescaling impacts simulation outcomes, we carried out simulations with different demographic histories and distributions of fitness effects using several values of the rescaling factor, Ǫ, and compared the deviation of key outcomes (fixation times, allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium, and the fraction of mutations that fix during the simulation) between the scaled and unscaled simulations. Our results indicate that scaling introduces substantial biases to each of these measured outcomes, even at small values of Ʈ. Moreover, the nature of these effects depends on the evolutionary model and scaling factor being examined. While increasing the scaling factor tends to increase the observed biases, this relationship is not always straightforward, thus it may be difficult to know the impact of scaling on simulation outcomes a priori. However, it appears that for most models, only a small number of replicates was needed to accurately quantify the bias produced by rescaling for a given Ʈ. In summary, while rescaling forward-in-time simulations may be necessary in many cases, researchers should be aware of the rescaling procedure's impact on simulation outcomes and consider investigating its magnitude in smaller scale simulations of the desired model(s) before selecting an appropriate value of Ʈ.</p>","PeriodicalId":48925,"journal":{"name":"Genetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyae180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Simulations are an essential tool in all areas of population genetic research, used in tasks such as the validation of theoretical analysis and the study of complex evolutionary models. Forward-in-time simulations are especially flexible, allowing for various types of natural selection, complex genetic architectures, and non-Wright-Fisher dynamics. However, their intense computational requirements can be prohibitive to simulating large populations and genomes. A popular method to alleviate this burden is to scale down the population size by some scaling factor while scaling up the mutation rate, selection coefficients, and recombination rate by the same factor. However, this rescaling approach may in some cases bias simulation results. To investigate the manner and degree to which rescaling impacts simulation outcomes, we carried out simulations with different demographic histories and distributions of fitness effects using several values of the rescaling factor, Ǫ, and compared the deviation of key outcomes (fixation times, allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium, and the fraction of mutations that fix during the simulation) between the scaled and unscaled simulations. Our results indicate that scaling introduces substantial biases to each of these measured outcomes, even at small values of Ʈ. Moreover, the nature of these effects depends on the evolutionary model and scaling factor being examined. While increasing the scaling factor tends to increase the observed biases, this relationship is not always straightforward, thus it may be difficult to know the impact of scaling on simulation outcomes a priori. However, it appears that for most models, only a small number of replicates was needed to accurately quantify the bias produced by rescaling for a given Ʈ. In summary, while rescaling forward-in-time simulations may be necessary in many cases, researchers should be aware of the rescaling procedure's impact on simulation outcomes and consider investigating its magnitude in smaller scale simulations of the desired model(s) before selecting an appropriate value of Ʈ.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
种群规模的重新缩放会使前向时间种群遗传模拟的结果出现明显偏差。
模拟是群体遗传研究各个领域的重要工具,用于验证理论分析和研究复杂的进化模型等任务。时间前向模拟尤其灵活,可用于各种类型的自然选择、复杂的遗传结构和非赖特-费舍尔动力学。然而,其高昂的计算要求可能会阻碍大型种群和基因组的模拟。为减轻这一负担,一种流行的方法是按一定的比例系数缩小种群规模,同时按相同的系数提高突变率、选择系数和重组率。然而,这种重新缩放的方法在某些情况下可能会使模拟结果出现偏差。为了研究重新缩放对模拟结果的影响方式和程度,我们使用不同的重新缩放因子Ǫ值,对不同的人口历史和适存效应分布进行了模拟,并比较了缩放模拟和未缩放模拟的关键结果(固定时间、等位基因频率、连锁不平衡和模拟期间固定的突变比例)的偏差。我们的研究结果表明,即使Ʈ 的值很小,缩放也会给这些测量结果中的每一个带来很大的偏差。此外,这些影响的性质取决于所研究的进化模型和缩放因子。虽然增加缩放因子往往会增加观测到的偏差,但这种关系并不总是很直观,因此很难预先知道缩放因子对模拟结果的影响。不过,对于大多数模型来说,似乎只需要少量的重复,就可以准确量化在给定 Ʈ 条件下重新缩放所产生的偏差。总之,虽然在许多情况下需要对前向时间模拟进行重定标,但研究人员应意识到重定标程序对模拟结果的影响,并考虑在选择合适的Ʈ 值之前,在所需模型的较小规模模拟中调查其影响程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics
Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
177
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: GENETICS is published by the Genetics Society of America, a scholarly society that seeks to deepen our understanding of the living world by advancing our understanding of genetics. Since 1916, GENETICS has published high-quality, original research presenting novel findings bearing on genetics and genomics. The journal publishes empirical studies of organisms ranging from microbes to humans, as well as theoretical work. While it has an illustrious history, GENETICS has changed along with the communities it serves: it is not your mentor''s journal. The editors make decisions quickly – in around 30 days – without sacrificing the excellence and scholarship for which the journal has long been known. GENETICS is a peer reviewed, peer-edited journal, with an international reach and increasing visibility and impact. All editorial decisions are made through collaboration of at least two editors who are practicing scientists. GENETICS is constantly innovating: expanded types of content include Reviews, Commentary (current issues of interest to geneticists), Perspectives (historical), Primers (to introduce primary literature into the classroom), Toolbox Reviews, plus YeastBook, FlyBook, and WormBook (coming spring 2016). For particularly time-sensitive results, we publish Communications. As part of our mission to serve our communities, we''ve published thematic collections, including Genomic Selection, Multiparental Populations, Mouse Collaborative Cross, and the Genetics of Sex.
期刊最新文献
Balancing selfing and outcrossing: the genetics and cell biology of nematodes with three sexual morphs. Allopolyploidy expanded gene content but not pangenomic variation in the hexaploid oilseed Camelina sativa. The recombination landscape of the barn owl, from families to populations. Network hub gene detection using the entire solution path information. A path integral approach for allele frequency dynamics under polygenic selection.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1