ArticleGenetics2025
Population size rescaling significantly biases outcomes of forward-in-time population genetic simulations.
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.
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
20 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
- Population Size Differences Can Lead to Biases in Phylogenetic Inference and Introgression Detection in the Presence of Purifying Selection.Systematic biology · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- AI solutions for evolutionary genomics of nonmodel species.Evolution letters · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Estimating the additive genetic variance for relative fitness from changes in allele frequency.Genetics · 2026Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: genetic and inbreeding loads.Genetics · 2025Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: linkage disequilibrium.Genetics · 2025Article
- Accessible, Realistic Genome Simulation with Selection Using stdpopsim.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- The persistence and loss of hard selective sweeps amid ancient human admixture.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- SimHumanity: Using SLiM 5.0 to run whole-genome simulations of human evolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Accessible, realistic genome simulation with selection using stdpopsim.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: Linkage disequilibrium.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A gene-based model of fitness and its implications for genetic variation: Genetic and inbreeding loads.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Parameter Scaling in Population Genetics Simulations may Introduce Unintended Background Selection: Considerations for Scaled Simulation Design.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Evolutionary rescue model informs strategies for driving cancer cell populations to extinction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Digital Image Processing to Detect Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.