↓ Skip to main content

Measuring Genetic Differentiation from Pool-seq Data

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
254 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
Measuring Genetic Differentiation from Pool-seq Data
Published in
Genetics, July 2018
DOI 10.1534/genetics.118.300900
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The advent of high throughput sequencing and genotyping technologies enables the comparison of patterns of polymorphisms at a very large number of markers. While the characterization of genetic structure from individual sequencing data remains expensive for many non-model species, it has been shown that sequencing pools of individual DNAs (Pool-seq) represents an attractive and cost-effective alternative. However, analyzing sequence read counts from a DNA pool instead of individual genotypes raises statistical challenges in deriving correct estimates of genetic differentiation. In this article, we provide a method-of-moments estimator of FST for Pool-seq data, based on an analysis-of-variance framework. We show, by means of simulations, that this new estimator is unbiased, and outperforms previously proposed estimators. We evaluate the robustness of our estimator to model misspecification, such as sequencing errors and uneven contributions of individual DNAs to the pools. Finally, by reanalyzing published Pool-seq data of different ecotypes of the prickly sculpin Cottus asper, we show how the use of an unbiased FST estimator may question the interpretation of population structure inferred from previous analyses.

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 5 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 254 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 %
Unknown 254 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 18%
Student > Master 39 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 20%
Environmental Science 11 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 1%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 62 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,567,245
of 29,172,250 outputs
Outputs from Genetics
#1,168
of 8,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,197
of 348,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics
#24
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,172,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 348,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 64% of its contemporaries.