Literature DB >> 20796133

Comparing three different methods to detect selective loci using dominant markers.

A Pérez-Figueroa1, M J García-Pereira1, M Saura1, E Rolán-Alvarez1, A Caballero1.   

Abstract

We carried out a simulation study to compare the efficiency of three alternative programs (DFDIST, DETSELD and BAYESCAN) to detect loci under directional selection from genome-wide scans using dominant markers. We also evaluated the efficiency of correcting for multiple testing those methods that use a classical probability approach. Under a wide range of scenarios, we conclude that BAYESCAN appears to be more efficient than the other methods, detecting a usually high percentage of true selective loci as well as less than 1% of outliers (false positives) under a fully neutral model. In addition, the percentage of outliers detected by this software is always correlated with the true percentage of selective loci in the genome. Our results show, nevertheless, that false positives are common even with a combination of methods and multitest correction, suggesting that conclusions obtained from this approach should be taken with extreme caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20796133     DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02093.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  57 in total

1.  Genome scanning for detecting adaptive genes along environmental gradients in the Japanese conifer, Cryptomeria japonica.

Authors:  Y Tsumura; K Uchiyama; Y Moriguchi; S Ueno; T Ihara-Ujino
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 2.  Q(ST)-F(ST) comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity.

Authors:  Tuomas Leinonen; R J Scott McCairns; Robert B O'Hara; Juha Merilä
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Landscape genomics reveal signatures of local adaptation in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).

Authors:  Tiegist D Abebe; Ali A Naz; Jens Léon
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 5.753

4.  Population size, habitat fragmentation, and the nature of adaptive variation in a stream fish.

Authors:  Dylan J Fraser; Paul V Debes; Louis Bernatchez; Jeffrey A Hutchings
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Gene-flow in a mosaic hybrid zone: is local introgression adaptive?

Authors:  Christelle Fraïsse; Camille Roux; John J Welch; Nicolas Bierne
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Challenges and pitfalls in the characterization of anonymous outlier AFLP markers in non-model species: lessons from an ocellated lizard genome scan.

Authors:  V L Nunes; M A Beaumont; R K Butlin; O S Paulo
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Disentangling the roles of history and local selection in shaping clinal variation of allele frequencies and gene expression in Norway spruce (Picea abies).

Authors:  Jun Chen; Thomas Källman; Xiaofei Ma; Niclas Gyllenstrand; Giusi Zaina; Michele Morgante; Jean Bousquet; Andrew Eckert; Jill Wegrzyn; David Neale; Ulf Lagercrantz; Martin Lascoux
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 8.  Finding the Genomic Basis of Local Adaptation: Pitfalls, Practical Solutions, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Sean Hoban; Joanna L Kelley; Katie E Lotterhos; Michael F Antolin; Gideon Bradburd; David B Lowry; Mary L Poss; Laura K Reed; Andrew Storfer; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 3.926

9.  Signatures of positive selection and local adaptation to urbanization in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus).

Authors:  Stephen E Harris; Jason Munshi-South
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 6.185

10.  Detecting and measuring selection from gene frequency data.

Authors:  Renaud Vitalis; Mathieu Gautier; Kevin J Dawson; Mark A Beaumont
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.