ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2025
Accounting for gene flow from unsampled ghost populations while estimating evolutionary history.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The missing data problem in population genomics and statistical methods to address them.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 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
Gene flow from unsampled or extinct ghost populations leave signatures on the genomes of individuals from extant, sampled populations, often introducing biases, data misinterpretation, and ambiguous results when estimating evolutionary history from population genomic data. Here we establish theoretical expectations for these biases, and then utilize extensive simulations under a variety of ghost topologies to systematically assess biases while accounting, or not accounting for gene flow from ghost populations in (i) population genetics summary statistics such as π, FST, and Tajima's D and (ii) demographic history (mutation-scaled effective population sizes, divergence times, and migration rates) under the Isolation with Migration (IM) model. Estimates of evolutionary history across all scenarios of deep divergence of an outgroup ghost indicate consistent (i) under-estimation of divergence times between sampled populations, (ii) over-estimation of effective population sizes of sampled populations, and (iii) under-estimation of migration rates between sampled populations, with increased gene flow from the unsampled ghost population. Without accounting for an unsampled ghost, summary statistics like FST are under-estimated, and π is over-estimated with increased gene flow from the ghost. These biases in summary statistics and population structure are however not captured under models of recent IM that approximate scales of the evolution of anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals and solely recapitulated using model-based estimation of evolutionary history. We also utilize a 355 locus dataset from African Hunter-Gatherer populations and discuss similar biases in estimating evolutionary history while not accounting for unsampled ghost.
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.