ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2019
Contemporary Demographic Reconstruction Methods Are Robust to Genome Assembly Quality: A Case Study in Tasmanian Devils.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 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
55 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population and landscape genomics provide insights into the adaptive genetic variation and future climate-induced vulnerability of the endangered tree speciesHorticulture research · 2026Article
- Ancient Transposable Elements Sustain Global Ecological Adaptation Despite Chronically Low Nucleotide Diversity.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Mixed Support for Pleistocene Sea-Level Fluctuations in Promoting the Diversification of Anole Lizards in the Northern Lesser Antilles.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Mutation rate estimate and population genomic analysis reveals decline of koalas prior to human arrival.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- PSMC-FAC: Automated Optimization of False-Negative Rate Corrections for Low-Coverage PSMC-Based Demographic Inference.Biology · 2026Article
- Soft Selective Sweeps Predominate in the Yellow Fever Mosquito Aedes aegypti.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Not Just Ne Ne-More: New Applications for SMC from Ecology to Phylogenies.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- Genomic insights on conservation priorities for North Sea houting and European lake whitefish (Coregonus spp.).Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- GHIST 2024: The First Genomic History Inference Strategies Tournament.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Limited population structure but signals of recent selection in introduced African Fig Fly (Zaprionus indianus) in North America.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- The devil in more detail: Eco-evolutionary genomics of Tasmanian devil persistence despite range-wide spread of a fatal, transmissible cancer.PLoS pathogens · 2025Article
- Whole genome resequencing reveals genetic diversity, population structure, and selection signatures in local duck breeds.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Estimating Recent and Historical Effective Population Size of Marine and Freshwater Sticklebacks.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Demographic History, Genetic Load, and the Efficacy of Selection in the Globally Invasive Mosquito Aedes aegypti.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Detectability of runs of homozygosity is influenced by analysis parameters and population-specific demographic history.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Where the "ruber" Meets the Road: Using the Genome of the Red Diamond Rattlesnake to Unravel the Evolutionary Processes Driving Venom Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Demographic History and Inbreeding in Two Declining Sea Duck Species Inferred From Whole-Genome Sequence Data.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Adaptation of Fusarium Head Blight Pathogens to Changes in Agricultural Practices and Human Migration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Genomic Diversity as a Key Conservation Criterion: Proof-of-Concept From Mammalian Whole-Genome Resequencing Data.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reconstructing species' demographic histories is a central focus of molecular ecology and evolution. Recently, an expanding suite of methods leveraging either the sequentially Markovian coalescent (SMC) or the site-frequency spectrum has been developed to reconstruct population size histories from genomic sequence data. However, few studies have investigated the robustness of these methods to genome assemblies of varying quality. In this study, we first present an improved genome assembly for the Tasmanian devil using the Chicago library method. Compared with the original reference genome, our new assembly reduces the number of scaffolds (from 35,975 to 10,010) and increases the scaffold N90 (from 0.101 to 2.164 Mb). Second, we assess the performance of four contemporary genomic methods for inferring population size history (PSMC, MSMC, SMC++, Stairway Plot), using the two devil genome assemblies as well as simulated, artificially fragmented genomes that approximate the hypothesized demographic history of Tasmanian devils. We demonstrate that each method is robust to assembly quality, producing similar estimates of Ne when simulated genomes were fragmented into up to 5,000 scaffolds. Overall, methods reliant on the SMC are most reliable between ∼300 generations before present (gbp) and 100 kgbp, whereas methods exclusively reliant on the site-frequency spectrum are most reliable between the present and 30 gbp. Our results suggest that when used in concert, genomic methods for reconstructing species' effective population size histories 1) can be applied to nonmodel organisms without highly contiguous reference genomes, and 2) are capable of detecting independently documented effects of historical geological events.
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.