↓ Skip to main content

A new method for estimating the demographic history from DNA sequences: an importance sampling approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
A new method for estimating the demographic history from DNA sequences: an importance sampling approach
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sadoune Ait Kaci Azzou, Fabrice Larribe, Sorana Froda

Abstract

The effective population size over time (demographic history) can be retraced from a sample of contemporary DNA sequences. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology based on importance sampling (IS) for exploring such demographic histories. Our starting point is the generalized skyline plot with the main difference being that our procedure, skywis plot, uses a large number of genealogies. The information provided by these genealogies is combined according to the IS weights. Thus, we compute a weighted average of the effective population sizes on specific time intervals (epochs), where the genealogies that agree more with the data are given more weight. We illustrate by a simulation study that the skywis plot correctly reconstructs the recent demographic history under the scenarios most commonly considered in the literature. In particular, our method can capture a change point in the effective population size, and its overall performance is comparable with the one of the bayesian skyline plot. We also introduce the case of serially sampled sequences and illustrate that it is possible to improve the performance of the skywis plot in the case of an exponential expansion of the effective population size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 29%
Mathematics 2 10%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 0 0%
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 07 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,422,065
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,043
of 11,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,972
of 264,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#54
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,792 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.