Literature DB >> 21429174

Comparison of F(ST) outlier tests for SNP loci under selection.

Shawn R Narum1, Jon E Hess.   

Abstract

Genome scans with many genetic markers provide the opportunity to investigate local adaptation in natural populations and identify candidate genes under selection. In particular, SNPs are dense throughout the genome of most organisms and are commonly observed in functional genes making them ideal markers to study adaptive molecular variation. This approach has become commonly employed in ecological and population genetics studies to detect outlier loci that are putatively under selection. However, there are several challenges to address with outlier approaches including genotyping errors, underlying population structure and false positives, variation in mutation rate and limited sensitivity (false negatives). In this study, we evaluated multiple outlier tests and their type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) error rates in a series of simulated data sets. Comparisons included simulation procedures (FDIST2, ARLEQUIN v.3.5 and BAYESCAN) as well as more conventional tools such as global F(ST) histograms. Of the three simulation methods, FDIST2 and BAYESCAN typically had the lowest type II error, BAYESCAN had the least type I error and Arlequin had highest type I and II error. High error rates in Arlequin with a hierarchical approach were partially because of confounding scenarios where patterns of adaptive variation were contrary to neutral structure; however, Arlequin consistently had highest type I and type II error in all four simulation scenarios tested in this study. Given the results provided here, it is important that outlier loci are interpreted cautiously and error rates of various methods are taken into consideration in studies of adaptive molecular variation, especially when hierarchical structure is included.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21429174     DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.02987.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  124 in total

1.  Genetic change for earlier migration timing in a pink salmon population.

Authors:  Ryan P Kovach; Anthony J Gharrett; David A Tallmon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units.

Authors:  W Chris Funk; John K McKay; Paul A Hohenlohe; Fred W Allendorf
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 17.712

3.  Genetic structure and signatures of selection in grey reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos).

Authors:  P Momigliano; R Harcourt; W D Robbins; V Jaiteh; G N Mahardika; A Sembiring; A Stow
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Detecting the footprints of divergent selection in oaks with linked markers.

Authors:  P G Goicoechea; R J Petit; A Kremer
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 5.  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

6.  Population structure, migration, and diversifying selection in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Abdel Abdellaoui; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; Peter de Knijff; Michel G Nivard; Xiangjun Xiao; Paul Scheet; Andrew Brooks; Erik A Ehli; Yueshan Hu; Gareth E Davies; James J Hudziak; Patrick F Sullivan; Toos van Beijsterveldt; Gonneke Willemsen; Eco J de Geus; Brenda W J H Penninx; Dorret I Boomsma
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Genome-wide scan reveals signatures of selection related to pollution adaptation in non-model estuarine Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus).

Authors:  J S Osterberg; K M Cammen; T F Schultz; B W Clark; R T Di Giulio
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  Clinal variation at phenology-related genes in spruce: parallel evolution in FTL2 and Gigantea?

Authors:  Jun Chen; Yoshiaki Tsuda; Michael Stocks; Thomas Källman; Nannan Xu; Katri Kärkkäinen; Tea Huotari; Vladimir L Semerikov; Giovanni G Vendramin; Martin Lascoux
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 9.  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

10.  Evolution of the human gastrokine locus and confounding factors regarding the pseudogenicity of GKN3.

Authors:  Jessica H Geahlen; Carlo Lapid; Kaisa Thorell; Igor Nikolskiy; Won Jae Huh; Edward L Oates; Jochen K M Lennerz; Xiaolin Tian; Victoria G Weis; Shradha S Khurana; Samuel B Lundin; Alan R Templeton; Jason C Mills
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 3.107

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.