Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39503241›Full record

ArticleGenetics2025

Population size rescaling significantly biases outcomes of forward-in-time population genetic simulations.

Amjad Dabi, Daniel R Schrider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Ancient DNA from shells reveals delayed genomic erosion and rapid immune adaptation in the critically endangered black abalone.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. The persistence and loss of hard selective sweeps amid admixture in ancient Eurasians.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Accessible, realistic genome simulation with selection using stdpopsim.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Digital Image Processing to Detect Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Amjad DabiDepartment of Genetics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7259-4608
Daniel R SchriderDepartment of Genetics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5249-4151

Funding

Deep learning for population geneticsR01HG010774 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI ANDREW D KERN · 2020 to 2026
$3.2M
Advancing evolutionary genetics through deep learningR35GM138286 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DANIEL R SCHRIDER · 2020 to 2026
$2.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010774NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM138286NIH HHS R01HG010774
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulations are an essential tool in all areas of population genetic research, used in tasks such as the validation of theoretical analysis and the study of complex evolutionary models. Forward-in-time simulations are especially flexible, allowing for various types of natural selection, complex genetic architectures, and non-Wright-Fisher dynamics. However, their intense computational requirements can be prohibitive to simulating large populations and genomes. A popular method to alleviate this burden is to scale down the population size by some scaling factor while scaling up the mutation rate, selection coefficients, and recombination rate by the same factor. However, this rescaling approach may in some cases bias simulation results. To investigate the manner and degree to which rescaling impacts simulation outcomes, we carried out simulations with different demographic histories and distributions of fitness effects using several values of the rescaling factor, Q, and compared the deviation of key outcomes (fixation times, allele frequencies, linkage disequilibrium, and the fraction of mutations that fix during the simulation) between the scaled and unscaled simulations. Our results indicate that scaling introduces substantial biases to each of these measured outcomes, even at small values of Q. Moreover, the nature of these effects depends on the evolutionary model and scaling factor being examined. While increasing the scaling factor tends to increase the observed biases, this relationship is not always straightforward; thus, it may be difficult to know the impact of scaling on simulation outcomes a priori. However, it appears that for most models, only a small number of replicates was needed to accurately quantify the bias produced by rescaling for a given Q. In summary, while rescaling forward-in-time simulations may be necessary in many cases, researchers should be aware of the rescaling procedure's impact on simulation outcomes and consider investigating its magnitude in smaller scale simulations of the desired model(s) before selecting an appropriate value of Q.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationGenetics, PopulationModels, GeneticPopulation DensityEvolution, MolecularGene FrequencyHumansLinkage DisequilibriumMutationMutation RateSelection, Geneticapproximation errorforward simulationrescaling

Identifiers

PMID39503241
PMCPMC11708920

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.