4.7 Article

Evaluating the performance of a multilocus Bayesian method for the estimation of migration rates

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1149-1166

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03218.x

关键词

Bayesian methods; gene flow; MCMC; migration; multilocus genotypes; parameter estimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayesian methods have become extremely popular in molecular ecology studies because they allow us to estimate demographic parameters of complex demographic scenarios using genetic data. Articles presenting new methods generally include sensitivity studies that evaluate their performance, but they tend to be limited and need to be followed by a more thorough evaluation. Here we evaluate the performance of a recent method, BAYESASS, which allows the estimation of recent migration rates among populations, as well as the inbreeding coefficient of each local population. We expand the simulation study of the original publication by considering multi-allelic markers and scenarios with varying number of populations. We also investigate the effect of varying migration rates and F-ST more thoroughly in order to identify the region of parameter space where the method is and is not able to provide accurate estimates of migration rate. Results indicate that if the demographic history of the species being studied fits the assumptions of the inference model, and if genetic differentiation is not too low (F-ST >= 0.05), then the method can give fairly accurate estimates of migration rates even when they are fairly high (about 0.1). However, when the assumptions of the inference model are violated, accurate estimates are obtained only if migration rates are very low (m = 0.01) and genetic differentiation is high (F-ST >= 0.10). Our results also show that using posterior assignment probabilities as an indication of how much confidence we can place on the assignments is problematical since the posterior probability of assignment can be very high even when the individual assignments are very inaccurate.

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