4.7 Article

Variation in recombination rate affects detection of outliers in genome scans under neutrality

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 29, 期 22, 页码 4274-4279

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.15501

关键词

adaptation; molecular evolution; population genetics-empirical; population genetics-theoretical

资金

  1. Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Genome Canada [241REF]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome scans can potentially identify genetic loci involved in evolutionary processes such as local adaptation and gene flow. Here, we show that recombination rate variation across a neutrally evolving genome gives rise to mixed sampling distributions of meanF(ST)(FST<^>), a common population genetic summary statistic. In particular, we show that in regions of low recombination the distribution ofFST<^>estimates has more variance and a longer tail than in more highly recombining regions. Determining outliers from the genome-wide distribution without taking local recombination rate into consideration may therefore increase the frequency of false positives in low recombination regions and be overly conservative in more highly recombining ones. We perform genome scans on simulated and empiricalDrosophila melanogasterdata sets and, in both cases, find patterns consistent with this neutral model. Similar patterns are observed for other summary statistics used to capture variation in the coalescent process. Linked selection, particularly background selection, is often invoked to explain heterogeneity inFST<^>across the genome, but here we point out that even under neutrality, statistical artefacts can arise due to variation in recombination rate. Our results highlight a flaw in the design of genome-scan studies and suggest that without estimates of local recombination rate, interpreting the genomic landscape of any summary statistic that captures variation in the coalescent process will be very difficult.

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

4.7
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