↓ Skip to main content

The impact of equilibrium assumptions on tests of selection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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.
Title
The impact of equilibrium assumptions on tests of selection
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica L. Crisci, Yu-Ping Poh, Shivani Mahajan, Jeffrey D. Jensen

Abstract

With the increasing availability and quality of whole genome population data, various methodologies of population genetic inference are being utilized in order to identify and quantify recent population-level selective events. Though there has been a great proliferation of such methodology, the type-I and type-II error rates of many proposed statistics have not been well-described. Moreover, the performance of these statistics is often not evaluated for different biologically relevant scenarios (e.g., population size change, population structure), nor for the effect of differing data sizes (i.e., genomic vs. sub-genomic). The absence of the above information makes it difficult to evaluate newly available statistics relative to one another, and thus, difficult to choose the proper toolset for a given empirical analysis. Thus, we here describe and compare the performance of four widely used tests of selection: SweepFinder, SweeD, OmegaPlus, and iHS. In order to consider the above questions, we utilize simulated data spanning a variety of selection coefficients and beneficial mutation rates. We demonstrate that the LD-based OmegaPlus performs best in terms of power to reject the neutral model under both equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions-an important result regarding the relative effectiveness of linkage disequilibrium relative to site frequency spectrum based statics. The results presented here ought to serve as a useful guide for future empirical studies, and provides a guide for statistical choice depending on the history of the population under consideration. Moreover, the parameter space investigated and the Type-I and Type-II error rates calculated, represent a natural benchmark by which future statistics may be assessed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 6%
France 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 57 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 35%
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 22%
Mathematics 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,702,587
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,039
of 11,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,222
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#219
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.