Cited by 14Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Using the variability of linkage disequilibrium between subpopulations to infer sweeps and epistatic selection in a diverse panel of chickens

Open access
Beissinger, T M, Gholami, M, Erbe, M, Weigend, S, Weigend, A, de Leon, N, Gianola, D, Simianer, H·2016·Heredity

Abstract

A whole-genome scan for identifying selection acting on pairs of linked loci is proposed and implemented. The scan is based on , one of Ohta's 1982 measures of between-population linkage disequilibrium (LD). An approximate empirical null distribution for the statistic is suggested. Although the partitioning of LD into between-population components was originally used to investigate epistatic selection, we demonstrate that values of may also be influenced by single-locus selective sweeps with linkage but no epistasis. The proposed scan is implemented in a diverse panel of chickens including 72 distinct breeds genotyped at 538 298 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In all, 1723 locus pairs are identified as putatively corresponding to a selective sweep or epistatic selection. These pairs of loci generally cluster to form overlapping or neighboring signals of selection. Known variants that were expected to have been under selection in the panel are identified, as well as an assortment of novel regions that have putatively been under selection in chickens. Notably, a promising pair of genes located 8 MB apart on chromosome 9 are identified based on as demonstrating strong evidence of dispersive epistatic selection between populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/hdy.2015.81

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although a certain number of candidate genes were identified, the authors pointed out that single-locus selection could not be excluded as an alternative explanation since selective sweeps can generate similar patterns.

    “Although a certain number of candidate genes were identified, the authors pointed out that single-locus selection could not be excluded as an alternative explanation since selective sweeps can generate similar patterns.”

    From Finding Hybrid Incompatibilities Using Genome Sequences from Hybrid Populations (2021) · cites this paper as Beissinger et al. 2016

  • Beissinger et al. (2016) computed the DIS′2 statistic, a measure that partitions linkage disequilibrium between and within populations.

    “Beissinger et al. (2016) computed the DIS′2 statistic (Ohta 1982a, 1982b), a measure that partitions linkage disequilibrium between and within populations.”

    From Finding Hybrid Incompatibilities Using Genome Sequences from Hybrid Populations (2021) · cites this paper as Beissinger et al. 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beissinger, T. M., Gholami, M., Erbe, M., Weigend, S., Weigend, A., de Leon, N., Gianola, D., & Simianer, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture (DE)
  • Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Simianer, H
Venue
Heredity
Published
2015-09-09
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
158-166
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W1876509248
Cited by
14
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (FKZ 0315528, 0315528)
  • Office of Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
linkage disequilibrium, epistatic selection, selective sweeps, whole genome scan, chickens, chicken breeds, single nucleotide polymorphisms, empirical null distribution, chromosome 9
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Epistasis, Genetic, Genetics, Population, Genotype, Genetic Linkage, Selection, Genetic, Linkage Disequilibrium, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review