4.7 Article

Comparative phylogeographic summary statistics for testing simultaneous vicariance

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 209-223

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02718.x

关键词

coalescent; comparative phylogeography; simultaneous vicariance; statistical power; summary statistic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Testing for simultaneous vicariance across comparative phylogeographic data sets is a notoriously difficult problem hindered by mutational variance, the coalescent variance, and variability across pairs of sister taxa in parameters that affect genetic divergence. We simulate vicariance to characterize the behaviour of several commonly used summary statistics across a range of divergence times, and to characterize this behaviour in comparative phylogeographic datasets having multiple taxon-pairs. We found Tajima's D to be relatively uncorrelated with other summary statistics across divergence times, and using simple hypothesis testing of simultaneous vicariance given variable population sizes, we counter-intuitively found that the variance across taxon pairs in Nei and Li's net nucleotide divergence (pi(net)), a common measure of population divergence, is often inferior to using the variance in Tajima's D across taxon pairs as a test statistic to distinguish ancient simultaneous vicariance from variable vicariance histories. The opposite and more intuitive pattern is found for testing more recent simultaneous vicariance, and overall we found that depending on the timing of vicariance, one of these two test statistics can achieve high statistical power for rejecting simultaneous vicariance, given a reasonable number of intron loci (> 5 loci, 400 bp) and a range of conditions. These results suggest that components of these two composite summary statistics should be used in future simulation-based methods which can simultaneously use a pool of summary statistics to test comparative the phylogeographic hypotheses we consider here.

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