4.8 Article

Genome Scans for Detecting Footprints of Local Adaptation Using a Bayesian Factor Model

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 2483-2495

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu182

关键词

F-ST; population structure; landscape genetics; population genomics; selection scans

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (DATGEN project) [ANR-2010-JCJC-1607-01]
  2. LabEx PERSYVAL-Lab [ANR-11-LABX-0025-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a considerable impetus in population genomics to pinpoint loci involved in local adaptation. A powerful approach to find genomic regions subject to local adaptation is to genotype numerous molecular markers and look for outlier loci. One of the most common approaches for selection scans is based on statistics that measure population differentiation such as F-ST. However, there are important caveats with approaches related to F-ST because they require grouping individuals into populations and they additionally assume a particular model of population structure. Here, we implement a more flexible individual-based approach based on Bayesian factor models. Factor models capture population structure with latent variables called factors, which can describe clustering of individuals into populations or isolation-by-distance patterns. Using hierarchical Bayesian modeling, we both infer population structure and identify outlier loci that are candidates for local adaptation. In order to identify outlier loci, the hierarchical factor model searches for loci that are atypically related to population structure as measured by the latent factors. In a model of population divergence, we show that it can achieve a 2-fold or more reduction of false discovery rate compared with the software BayeScan or with an F-ST approach. We show that our software can handle large data sets by analyzing the single nucleotide polymorphisms of the Human Genome Diversity Project. The Bayesian factor model is implemented in the open-source PCAdapt software.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据