ArticleGenome biology and evolution2025
Parameter Scaling in Population Genetics Simulations may Introduce Unintended Background Selection: Considerations for Scaled Simulation Design.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allelic gene conversion softens selective sweeps.Genetics · 2026Article
- The rights and wrongs of rescaling in population genetics simulations.PLoS genetics · 2026Review
- Adaptation across an extreme elevational gradient in Andean leaf-eared mice, the world's highest-dwelling mammal.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Estimating the additive genetic variance for relative fitness from changes in allele frequency.Genetics · 2026Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: linkage disequilibrium.Genetics · 2025Article
- SimHumanity: Using SLiM 5.0 to run whole-genome simulations of human evolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: Linkage disequilibrium.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
Scaling is a common practice in population genetic simulations to increase computational efficiency. However, few studies systematically examine the effects of scaling on diversity estimates and the comparability of scaled results to unscaled simulations and empirical data. We investigate the effects of scaling in two species, modern humans and Drosophila melanogaster. These species have stark differences in population size and generation time, necessitating moderate-to-no scaling for humans and dramatic scaling for Drosophila. We determine how coalescence, runtime, memory, estimates of diversity, the site frequency spectra, and linkage disequilibrium are influenced by scaling. We also examine the impact of simulated segment length and burn-in time on these metrics. Our results demonstrate that while computational efficiency improves with scaling, large scaling factors distort genetic diversity and dynamics between genetic variants, resulting in deviations from the intended model and empirical observations. Specifically, strongly scaled simulations may experience stronger negative selection on deleterious mutations, which amplifies background selection and purges linked mutations, leaving only rare strongly deleterious variants in the final population. We additionally show that a heuristic burn-in length of 10N generations is often insufficient for full coalescence in both models and alters expected linkage disequilibrium patterns. Finally, we provide considerations for conducting scaled simulations and offer potential strategies for the mitigation of scaling effects. For most nonmodel species simulations, we advocate for a bespoke scaling strategy drawn from these use cases.
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.