Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639797›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2022

Recommendations for improving statistical inference in population genomics.

Parul Johri, Charles F Aquadro, Mark Beaumont, Brian Charlesworth, Laurent Excoffier, Adam Eyre-Walker, Peter D Keightley, Michael Lynch, Gil McVean, Bret A Payseur and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ancient DNA from shells reveals delayed genomic erosion and rapid immune adaptation in the critically endangered black abalone.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Towards an evolutionary baseline model ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Parul JohriSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Charles F AquadroDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Mark BeaumontSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Brian CharlesworthInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Laurent ExcoffierInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Adam Eyre-WalkerSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Peter D KeightleyInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Michael LynchSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Gil McVeanBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Bret A PayseurLaboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Susanne P PfeiferSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Wolfgang StephanNatural History Museum, Berlin, Germany.
Jeffrey D JensenSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4786-8064

Funding

Causes and Population-genetic Consequences of Molecular VariationR35GM122566 · NIGMS · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI Michael R LYNCH · 2017 to 2026
$7.7M
Evolution of Phenotypic Extremes: Genetic Determinants of Gigantism, Boldness, and RecombinationR35GM139412 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bret A. Payseur · 2021 to 2026
$5.7M
Adaptive Protein Evolution of the Drosophila Germline Stem Cell Gene Bag of MarblesR01GM095793 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI AQUADRO, CHARLES F · 2011 to 2024
$3.9M
On differentiating selective and neutral evolutionary processesR35GM139383 · NIGMS · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI JENSEN, JEFFREY D · 2021 to 2025
$3.0M
Developing novel statistics and coalescent approaches for the improved study of virus evolution R01GM135899 · NIGMS · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI JENSEN, JEFFREY D · 2019 to 2020
$367k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM095793NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM135899NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122566NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM139383NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM139412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of population genomics has grown rapidly in response to the recent advent of affordable, large-scale sequencing technologies. As opposed to the situation during the majority of the 20th century, in which the development of theoretical and statistical population genetic insights outpaced the generation of data to which they could be applied, genomic data are now being produced at a far greater rate than they can be meaningfully analyzed and interpreted. With this wealth of data has come a tendency to focus on fitting specific (and often rather idiosyncratic) models to data, at the expense of a careful exploration of the range of possible underlying evolutionary processes. For example, the approach of directly investigating models of adaptive evolution in each newly sequenced population or species often neglects the fact that a thorough characterization of ubiquitous nonadaptive processes is a prerequisite for accurate inference. We here describe the perils of these tendencies, present our consensus views on current best practices in population genomic data analysis, and highlight areas of statistical inference and theory that are in need of further attention. Thereby, we argue for the importance of defining a biologically relevant baseline model tuned to the details of each new analysis, of skepticism and scrutiny in interpreting model fitting results, and of carefully defining addressable hypotheses and underlying uncertainties.

Indexed as

GenomicsMetagenomics

Identifiers

PMID35639797
PMCPMC9154105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.