ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
Inference of Gene Flow between Species from Genomic Data When the Mode, Direction, and Lineages are Misspecified.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Genomic Perspective on Cryptic Species Reveals Complex Evolutionary Dynamics in the Gray Zone of the Speciation Continuum.Systematic biology · 2026Article
- Scaling up Bayesian population phylogenomics through virtual dimension reduction.Nature communications · 2026Article
- On the robustness of Bayesian inference of gene flow to intragenic recombination and natural selection.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
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
Thanks to genomic data, interspecific gene flow is increasingly recognized as a major evolutionary force that shapes biodiversity. Two models have been developed in the multispecies coalescent (MSC) framework to infer gene flow from genomic data, assuming either constant-rate continuous migration (MSC-M) or discrete introgression/hybridization (MSC-I). The extreme simplicity of these models raises concerns about their usefulness as they represent misspecified models when applied to real data. Here, we study inference of gene flow under the MSC-M model, considering mis-assignment of gene flow onto incorrect parental or daughter lineages, misspecification of the direction of gene flow, and misspecification of the mode of gene flow. Mis-assignment of gene flow to an incorrect lineage causes large biases in the estimated rates. The Bayesian test has high power for inferring both recent and ancient gene flow, between either sister lineages or nonsister lineages, although misspecification of the direction of gene flow may make it hard to distinguish early divergence with gene flow from recent complete isolation. Misspecification of the mode of gene flow (MSC-I versus MSC-M) has small local effects, and gene flow is detected with high power despite the misspecification. We analyze a genomic dataset from the purple cone spruce (Picea spp., Pinaceae), which putatively arose through homoploid hybrid speciation, to demonstrate practical implications of our theoretical analyses. Overall, we find that the extremely idealized models of gene flow (in particular the discrete MSC-I model) are very effective for extracting information about species divergence and gene flow from genomic data.
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.