↓ Skip to main content

Pervasive selection or is it…? why are FST outliers sometimes so frequent?

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Ecology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
330 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Pervasive selection or is it…? why are FST outliers sometimes so frequent?
Published in
Molecular Ecology, April 2013
DOI 10.1111/mec.12241
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is now common for population geneticists to estimate FST for a large number of loci across the genome, before testing for selected loci as being outliers to the FST distribution. One surprising result of such FST scans is the often high proportion (>1% and sometimes >10%) of outliers detected, and this is often interpreted as evidence for pervasive local adaptation. In this issue of Molecular Ecolog, Fourcade et al. (2013) observe that a particularly high rate of FST outliers has often been found in river organisms, such as fishes or damselflies, despite there being no obvious reason why selection should affect a larger proportion of the genomes of these organisms. Using computer simulations, Fourcade et al. (2013) show that the strong correlation in co-ancestry produced in long onedimensional landscapes (such as rivers, valleys, peninsulas, oceanic ridges or coastlines) greatly increases the neutral variance in FST, especially when the landscape is further reticulated into fractal networks. As a consequence, outlier tests have a high rate of false positives, unless this correlation can be taken into account. Fourcade et al.'s study highlights an extreme case of the general problem, first noticed by Robertson (1975a,b) and Nei & Maruyama (1975), that correlated co-ancestry inflates the neutral variance in FST when compared to its expectation under an island model of population structure. Similar warnings about the validity of outlier tests have appeared regularly since then but have not been widely cited in the recent genomics literature. We further emphasize that FST outliers can arise in many different ways and that outlier tests are not designed for situations where the genetic architecture of local adaptation involves many loci.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 17 5%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 293 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 112 34%
Researcher 77 23%
Student > Master 28 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 5%
Student > Bachelor 13 4%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 29 9%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 222 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 13%
Environmental Science 14 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 1%
Mathematics 3 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 36 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#9,347,359
of 34,640,154 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Ecology
#3,243
of 7,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,217
of 249,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Ecology
#18
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,640,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.