ArticleGenetics2026
Effects of rescaling forward-in-time population genetic simulations.
Article in Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- AI solutions for evolutionary genomics of nonmodel species.Evolution letters · 2026Review
- ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations in regulatory regions of thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: linkage disequilibrium.Genetics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forward-in-time population genetic simulations enable modelling of a wide array of complex evolutionary scenarios. Simulating small genomic regions, and rescaling by reducing population size by a scaling factor while maintaining population-scaled parameters, are common approaches for improving computational tractability. However, simulating whole chromosomes in large populations remains computationally prohibitive, and it is unclear what scaling factors produce consistent evolutionary dynamics between rescaled and unscaled populations. Here, we thoroughly test the effects of rescaling in populations experiencing direct and linked effects of selection for various scaling factors and chromosomal lengths in Drosophila melanogaster-like populations by comparing them with theoretical expectations. We find that while rescaling has minimal effects with most length and scaling factor combinations, simulating long regions with large scaling factors can introduce biases in summary statistics including neutral diversity, allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium, and nonneutral divergence, even within expected diffusion limits. These deviations occur particularly when the crossover rate exceeds 0.44 per individual/generation because substantial multiple-crossover events are likely to occur within individuals, reducing the effect of recombination. In addition, when the genome-wide deleterious mutation rate is high (U≫1) in highly rescaled long regions, we observe increased Hill-Robertson interference effects and progeny skew, the extent of which was strongly dependent on the fitness effects of selected mutations. We find that hitchhiking effects near functional regions are relatively unaffected by rescaling the population, even with large scaling factors. Our findings expose potential pitfalls when simulating long regions with rescaling and highlight parameter spaces within which expected evolutionary dynamics are conserved.
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.