Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36103705›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2022

Gene flow biases population genetic inference of recombination rate.

Kieran Samuk, Mohamed A F Noor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. High prevalence of PRDM9-independent recombination hotspots in placental mammals.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kieran SamukDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0396-465X
Mohamed A F NoorDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5400-4408

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate estimates of the rate of recombination are key to understanding a host of evolutionary processes as well as the evolution of the recombination rate itself. Model-based population genetic methods that infer recombination rates from patterns of linkage disequilibrium in the genome have become a popular method to estimate rates of recombination. However, these linkage disequilibrium-based methods make a variety of simplifying assumptions about the populations of interest that are often not met in natural populations. One such assumption is the absence of gene flow from other populations. Here, we use forward-time population genetic simulations of isolation-with-migration scenarios to explore how gene flow affects the accuracy of linkage disequilibrium-based estimators of recombination rate. We find that moderate levels of gene flow can result in either the overestimation or underestimation of recombination rates by up to 20-50% depending on the timing of divergence. We also find that these biases can affect the detection of interpopulation differences in recombination rate, causing both false positives and false negatives depending on the scenario. We discuss future possibilities for mitigating these biases and recommend that investigators exercise caution and confirm that their study populations meet assumptions before deploying these methods.

Indexed as

Gene FlowRecombination, GeneticBiasGenetics, PopulationLinkage DisequilibriumModels, Geneticgene flowlinkage disequilibriummethodspopulation geneticsrecombination

Identifiers

PMID36103705
PMCPMC9635666

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.