利用固定数量的分离位点进行群体遗传推断:重新评估。

Sebastián E Ramos-Onsins, Sylvain Mousset, Thomas Mitchell-Olds, Wolfgang Stephan
{"title":"利用固定数量的分离位点进行群体遗传推断:重新评估。","authors":"Sebastián E Ramos-Onsins,&nbsp;Sylvain Mousset,&nbsp;Thomas Mitchell-Olds,&nbsp;Wolfgang Stephan","doi":"10.1017/S0016672307008877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coalescent theory is commonly used to perform population genetic inference at the nucleotide level. Here, we examine the procedure that fixes the number of segregating sites (henceforth the FS procedure). In this approach a fixed number of segregating sites (S) are placed on a coalescent tree (independently of the total and internode lengths of the tree). Thus, although widely used, the FS procedure does not strictly follow the assumptions of coalescent theory and must be considered an approximation of (i) the standard procedure that uses a fixed population mutation parameter theta, and (ii) procedures that condition on the number of segregating sites. We study the differences in the false positive rate for nine statistics by comparing the FS procedure with the procedures (i) and (ii), using several evolutionary models with single-locus and multilocus data. Our results indicate that for single-locus data the FS procedure is accurate for the equilibrium neutral model, but problems arise under the alternative models studied; furthermore, for multilocus data, the FS procedure becomes inaccurate even for the standard neutral model. Therefore, we recommend a procedure that fixes the theta value (or alternatively, procedures that condition on S and take into account the uncertainty of theta) for analysing evolutionary models with multilocus data. With single-locus data, the FS procedure should not be employed for models other than the standard neutral model.</p>","PeriodicalId":12777,"journal":{"name":"Genetical research","volume":"89 4","pages":"231-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0016672307008877","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Population genetic inference using a fixed number of segregating sites: a reassessment.\",\"authors\":\"Sebastián E Ramos-Onsins,&nbsp;Sylvain Mousset,&nbsp;Thomas Mitchell-Olds,&nbsp;Wolfgang Stephan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0016672307008877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Coalescent theory is commonly used to perform population genetic inference at the nucleotide level. Here, we examine the procedure that fixes the number of segregating sites (henceforth the FS procedure). In this approach a fixed number of segregating sites (S) are placed on a coalescent tree (independently of the total and internode lengths of the tree). Thus, although widely used, the FS procedure does not strictly follow the assumptions of coalescent theory and must be considered an approximation of (i) the standard procedure that uses a fixed population mutation parameter theta, and (ii) procedures that condition on the number of segregating sites. We study the differences in the false positive rate for nine statistics by comparing the FS procedure with the procedures (i) and (ii), using several evolutionary models with single-locus and multilocus data. Our results indicate that for single-locus data the FS procedure is accurate for the equilibrium neutral model, but problems arise under the alternative models studied; furthermore, for multilocus data, the FS procedure becomes inaccurate even for the standard neutral model. Therefore, we recommend a procedure that fixes the theta value (or alternatively, procedures that condition on S and take into account the uncertainty of theta) for analysing evolutionary models with multilocus data. With single-locus data, the FS procedure should not be employed for models other than the standard neutral model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetical research\",\"volume\":\"89 4\",\"pages\":\"231-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0016672307008877\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetical research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672307008877\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672307008877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

聚结理论通常用于在核苷酸水平上进行群体遗传推断。在这里,我们研究确定分离位点数量的程序(今后称为FS程序)。在这种方法中,将固定数量的分离位点(S)放置在聚结树上(与树的总长度和节间长度无关)。因此,虽然被广泛使用,但FS程序并不严格遵循聚结理论的假设,必须被视为(i)使用固定种群突变参数theta的标准程序和(ii)以分离位点数量为条件的程序的近似。我们通过使用单位点和多位点数据的几种进化模型,将FS程序与程序(i)和(ii)进行比较,研究了9个统计量的假阳性率差异。结果表明,对于单基因座数据,FS程序对平衡中性模型是准确的,但在所研究的替代模型下存在问题;此外,对于多位点数据,FS程序即使对于标准中性模型也变得不准确。因此,我们推荐一种固定theta值的程序(或者,以S为条件并考虑theta的不确定性的程序)来分析具有多位点数据的进化模型。对于单基因座数据,除标准中性模型外,不应采用FS程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Population genetic inference using a fixed number of segregating sites: a reassessment.

Coalescent theory is commonly used to perform population genetic inference at the nucleotide level. Here, we examine the procedure that fixes the number of segregating sites (henceforth the FS procedure). In this approach a fixed number of segregating sites (S) are placed on a coalescent tree (independently of the total and internode lengths of the tree). Thus, although widely used, the FS procedure does not strictly follow the assumptions of coalescent theory and must be considered an approximation of (i) the standard procedure that uses a fixed population mutation parameter theta, and (ii) procedures that condition on the number of segregating sites. We study the differences in the false positive rate for nine statistics by comparing the FS procedure with the procedures (i) and (ii), using several evolutionary models with single-locus and multilocus data. Our results indicate that for single-locus data the FS procedure is accurate for the equilibrium neutral model, but problems arise under the alternative models studied; furthermore, for multilocus data, the FS procedure becomes inaccurate even for the standard neutral model. Therefore, we recommend a procedure that fixes the theta value (or alternatively, procedures that condition on S and take into account the uncertainty of theta) for analysing evolutionary models with multilocus data. With single-locus data, the FS procedure should not be employed for models other than the standard neutral model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Wild populations are smaller than we think: a commentary on 'Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review' by Richard Frankham. Impact of selection on effective population size: a commentary on 'Inbreeding in artificial selection programmes' by Alan Robertson. Hybrid dysgenesis: from darkness into light: a commentary on 'Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: rules of inheritance of female sterility' by William R. Engels. A model in two acts: a commentary on 'A model detectable alleles in a finite population' by Timoko Ohta and Motoo Kimura. Estimating the recombination parameter: a commentary on 'Estimating the recombination parameter of a finite population model without selection' by Richard R. Hudson.
×
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