ArticleGenetica2013
Tests of two methods for identifying founder effects in metapopulations reveal substantial type II error.
Article in Genetica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A chromosomal inversion may facilitate adaptation despite periodic gene flow in a freshwater fish.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Nonequilibrium Conditions Explain Spatial Variability in Genetic Structuring of Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor).The Journal of heredityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic analysis has been promoted as a way to reconstruct recent historical dynamics ("historical demography") by screening for signatures of events, such as bottlenecks, that disrupt equilibrium patterns of variation. Such analyses might also identify "metapopulation" processes like extinction and recolonization or source-sink dynamics, but this potential remains largely unrealized. Here we use simulations to test the ability of two currently used strategies to distinguish between a set of interconnected subpopulations (demes) that have undergone bottlenecks or extinction and recolonization events (metapopulation dynamics) from a set of static demes. The first strategy, decomposed pairwise regression, provides a holistic test for heterogeneity among demes in their patterns of isolation-by-distance. This method suffered from a type II error rate of 59-100 %, depending on parameter conditions. The second strategy tests for deviations from mutation-drift equilibrium on a deme-by-deme basis to identify sites likely to have experienced recent bottlenecks or founder effects. Although bottleneck tests have good statistical power for single populations with recent population declines, their validity in structured populations has been called into question, and they have not been tested in a metapopulation context with immigration (or colonization) and population recovery. Our simulations of hypothetical metapopulations show that population recovery can rapidly eliminate the statistical signature of a bottleneck, and that moderate levels of gene flow can generate a false signal of recent population growth for demes in equilibrium. Although we did not cover all possible metapopulation scenarios, the performance of the tests was disappointing. Our results indicate that these methods might often fail to identify population bottlenecks and founder effects if population recovery and/or gene flow are influential demographic features of the study system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.