↓ Skip to main content

The effects of sample size on population genomic analyses – implications for the tests of neutrality

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
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
The effects of sample size on population genomic analyses – implications for the tests of neutrality
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2441-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sankar Subramanian

Abstract

One of the fundamental measures of molecular genetic variation is the Watterson's estimator (θ), which is based on the number of segregating sites. The estimation of θ is unbiased only under neutrality and constant population growth. It is well known that the estimation of θ is biased when these assumptions are violated. However, the effects of sample size in modulating the bias was not well appreciated. We examined this issue in detail based on large-scale exome data and robust simulations. Our investigation revealed that sample size appreciably influences θ estimation and this effect was much higher for constrained genomic regions than that of neutral regions. For instance, θ estimated for synonymous sites using 512 human exomes was 1.9 times higher than that obtained using 16 exomes. However, this difference was 2.5 times for the nonsynonymous sites of the same data. We observed a positive correlation between the rate of increase in θ estimates (with respect to the sample size) and the magnitude of selection pressure. For example, θ estimated for the nonsynonymous sites of highly constrained genes (dN/dS < 0.1) using 512 exomes was 3.6 times higher than that estimated using 16 exomes. In contrast this difference was only 2 times for the less constrained genes (dN/dS > 0.9). The results of this study reveal the extent of underestimation owing to small sample sizes and thus emphasize the importance of sample size in estimating a number of population genomic parameters. Our results have serious implications for neutrality tests such as Tajima D, Fu-Li D and those based on the McDonald and Kreitman test: Neutrality Index and the fraction of adaptive substitutions. For instance, use of 16 exomes produced 2.4 times higher proportion of adaptive substitutions compared to that obtained using 512 exomes (24 % vs 10 %).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 26%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 18%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 30 20%
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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,752,034
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,402
of 10,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,722
of 297,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#97
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,656 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 297,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.