ArticlePloS one2022
Detecting steps in spatial genetic data: Which diversity measures are best?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurately detecting sudden changes, or steps, in genetic diversity across landscapes is important for locating barriers to gene flow, identifying selectively important loci, and defining management units. However, there are many metrics that researchers could use to detect steps and little information on which might be the most robust. Our study aimed to determine the best measure/s for genetic step detection along linear gradients using biallelic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. We tested the ability to differentiate between linear and step-like gradients in genetic diversity, using a range of diversity measures derived from the q-profile, including allelic richness, Shannon Information, GST, and Jost-D, as well as Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. To determine the properties of each measure, we repeated simulations of different intensities of step and allele proportion ranges, with varying genome sample size, number of loci, and number of localities. We found that alpha diversity (within-locality) based measures were ineffective at detecting steps. Further, allelic richness-based beta (between-locality) measures (e.g., Jaccard and Sørensen dissimilarity) were not reliable for detecting steps, but instead detected departures from fixation. The beta diversity measures best able to detect steps were: Shannon Information based measures, GST based measures, a Jost-D related measure, and Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. No one measure was best overall, with a trade-off between those measures with high step detection sensitivity (GST and Bray-Curtis) and those that minimised false positives (a variant of Shannon Information). Therefore, when detecting steps, we recommend understanding the differences between measures and using a combination of approaches.
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.