↓ Skip to main content

Sampling strategies for frequency spectrum-based population genomic inference

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sampling strategies for frequency spectrum-based population genomic inference
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12862-014-0254-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John D Robinson, Alec J Coffman, Michael J Hickerson, Ryan N Gutenkunst

Abstract

BackgroundThe allele frequency spectrum (AFS) consists of counts of the number of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci with derived variants present at each given frequency in a sample. Multiple approaches have recently been developed for parameter estimation and calculation of model likelihoods based on the joint AFS from two or more populations. We conducted a simulation study of one of these approaches, implemented in the Python module ¿a¿i, to compare parameter estimation and model selection accuracy given different sample sizes under one- and two-population models.ResultsOur simulations included a variety of demographic models and two parameterizations that differed in the timing of events (divergence or size change). Using a number of SNPs reasonably obtained through next-generation sequencing approaches (10,000 - 50,000), accurate parameter estimates and model selection were possible for models with more ancient demographic events, even given relatively small numbers of sampled individuals. However, for recent events, larger numbers of individuals were required to achieve accuracy and precision in parameter estimates similar to that seen for models with older divergence or population size changes. We quantify i) the uncertainty in model selection, using tools from information theory, and ii) the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates, using the root mean squared error, as a function of the timing of demographic events, sample sizes used in the analysis, and complexity of the simulated models.ConclusionsHere, we illustrate the utility of the genome-wide AFS for estimating demographic history and provide recommendations to guide sampling in population genomics studies that seek to draw inference from the AFS. Our results indicate that larger samples of individuals (and thus larger AFS) provide greater power for model selection and parameter estimation for more recent demographic events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Portugal 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 134 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 28%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 95 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 12%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 24 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,477
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,407
of 368,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#41
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.