ArticleMolecular ecology resources2024
Population genetic simulation: Benchmarking frameworks for non-standard models of natural selection.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Footprints of Seasonal Fluctuating Selection: A Comparison With Established Selection Forms.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Natural selection acting on complex traits hampers the predictive accuracy of polygenic scores in ancient samples.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Parameter Scaling in Population Genetics Simulations may Introduce Unintended Background Selection: Considerations for Scaled Simulation Design.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- How does plant chemodiversity evolve? Testing five hypotheses in one population genetic model.The New phytologist · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population genetic simulation has emerged as a common tool for investigating increasingly complex evolutionary and demographic models. Software capable of handling high-level model complexity has recently been developed, and the advancement of tree sequence recording now allows simulations to merge the efficiency and genealogical insight of coalescent simulations with the flexibility of forward simulations. However, frameworks utilizing these features have not yet been compared and benchmarked. Here, we evaluate various simulation workflows using the coalescent simulator msprime and the forward simulator SLiM, to assess resource efficiency and determine an optimal simulation framework. Three aspects were evaluated: (1) the burn-in, to establish an equilibrium level of neutral diversity in the population; (2) the forward simulation, in which temporally fluctuating selection is acting; and (3) the final computation of summary statistics. We provide typical memory and computation time requirements for each step. We find that the fastest framework, a combination of coalescent and forward simulation with tree sequence recording, increases simulation speed by over twenty times compared to classical forward simulations without tree sequence recording, although it does require six times more memory. Overall, using efficient simulation workflows can lead to a substantial improvement when modelling complex evolutionary scenarios-although the optimal framework ultimately depends on the available computational resources.
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.