CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 422Genetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Genetic DynamicsGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

QST–FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity

Leinonen, Tuomas, McCairns, R. J. Scott, O'Hara, Robert B., Merilä, Juha·2013·Nature Reviews Genetics
DOI 10.1038/nrg3395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Comparative studies of the divergence of quantitative traits and neutral molecular markers, known as Q(ST)-F(ST) comparisons, provide a means for researchers to distinguish between natural selection and genetic drift as causes of population differentiation in complex polygenic traits. The use of Q(ST)-F(ST) comparisons has increased rapidly in the last few years, highlighting the utility of this approach for addressing a wide range of questions that are relevant to evolutionary and ecological genetics. These studies have also provided lessons for the design of future Q(ST)-F(ST) comparisons. Methods based on the Q(ST)-F(ST) approach could also be used to analyse various types of 'omics' data in new and revealing ways.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg3395

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 116

  1. Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159 (1931). · DOI
  2. Holsinger, K. E. & Weir, B. S. Genetics in geographically structured populations: defining, estimating and interpreting FST . Nature Rev. Genet. 10, 639–650 (2009). · DOI
  3. Waples, R. S. & Gaggiotti, O. What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol. Ecol. 15, 1419–1439 (2006). · DOI
  4. Lewontin, R. C. & Krakauer, J. Distribution of gene frequency as a test of the theory of selective neutrality of polymorphisms. Genetics 74, 175–195 (1973). · DOI
  5. Beaumont, M. A. Adaptation and speciation: what can Fst tell us? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 435–440 (2005). · DOI
  6. Mackay, T. F. C., Stone, E. A. & Ayroles, J. F. The genetics of quantitative traits: challenges and prospects. Nature Rev. Genet. 10, 565–577 (2009). · DOI
  7. Hill, W. G. & Kirkpatrick, M. What animal breeding has taught us about evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat. 41, 1–19 (2010). · DOI
  8. Wright, S. The genetic structure of populations. Ann. Eugen. 15, 323–354 (1951). · DOI
  9. Leinonen, T., O'Hara, R. B., Cano, J. M. & Merilä, J. Comparative studies of quantitative trait and neutral marker divergence: a meta-analysis. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1–17 (2008). A second meta-analysis of Q ST –F ST studies with an extended historical narrative of the development of comparative marker and quantitative genetic studies. · DOI
  10. Spitze, K. Population-structure in Daphnia obtusa: quantitative genetic and allozymic variation. Genetics 135, 367–374 (1993). The study in which the term Q ST was coined to denote the proportion of variance in quantitative traits residing among populations. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Merilä, J. & Crnokrak, P. Comparison of genetic differentiation at marker loci and quantitative traits. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 892–903 (2001). The first meta-analysis and review of Q ST –F ST studies. · DOI
  12. McKay, J. K. & Latta, R. G. Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 285–291 (2002). · DOI
  13. Lande, R. Neutral theory of quantitative genetic variance in an island model with local extinction and colonization. Evolution 46, 381–389 (1992). · DOI
  14. Brommer, J. E. Whither PST? The approximation of QST by PST in evolutionary and conservation biology. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1160–1168 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  15. O'Hara, R. B. & Merilä, J. Bias and precision in QST estimates: problems and some solutions. Genetics 171, 1331–1339 (2005). · DOI
  16. Kremer, A., Zanetto, A. & Ducousso, A. Multilocus and multitrait measures of differentiation for gene markers and phenotypic traits. Genetics 145, 1229–1241 (1997). · DOI
  17. Chenoweth, S. F. & Blows, M. W. QST meets the G matrix: the dimensionality of adaptive divergence in multiple correlated quantitative traits. Evolution 62, 1437–1449 (2008). · DOI
  18. Martin, G., Chapuis, E. & Goudet, J. Multivariate QST-FST comparisons: a neutrality test for the evolution of the G matrix in structured populations. Genetics 180, 2135–2149 (2008). · DOI
  19. Ovaskainen, O., Karhunen, M., Zheng, C. Z., Arias, J. M. C. & Merilä, J. A new method to uncover signatures of divergent and stabilizing selection in quantitative traits. Genetics 189, 621–632 (2011). · DOI
  20. Volis, S., Yakubov, B., Shulgina, I., Ward, D. & Mendlinger, S. Distinguishing adaptive from nonadaptive genetic differentiation: comparison of QST and FST at two spatial scales. Heredity 95, 466–475 (2005). · DOI
  21. Manier, M. K., Seyler, C. M. & Arnold, S. J. Adaptive divergence within and between ecotypes of the terrestrial garter snake, Thamnophis elegans, assessed with FST-QST comparisons. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1705–1719 (2007). · DOI
  22. Whitlock, M. C. & Gilbert, K. J. QST in a hierarchically structured population. Mol. Ecol. Resources 12, 481–483 (2012). · DOI
  23. Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population-structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).
  24. Whitlock, M. C. Evolutionary inference from QST . Mol. Ecol. 17, 1885–1896 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resources 11, 5–18 (2011). · DOI
  26. Kronholm, I., Loudet, O. & de Meaux, J. Influence of mutation rate on estimators of genetic differentiation - lessons from Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Genet. 11, 33 (2010). · DOI
  27. Storz, J. F. Using genome scans of DNA polymorphism to infer adaptive population divergence. Mol. Ecol. 14, 671–688 (2005). · DOI
  28. Foll, M. & Gaggiotti, O. A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective. Genetics 180, 977–993 (2008). · DOI
  29. Excoffier, L., Hofer, T. & Foll, M. Detecting loci under selection in a hierarchically structured population. Heredity 103, 285–298 (2009). · DOI
  30. Thornton, K. R. & Jensen, J. D. Controlling the false-positive rate in multilocus genome scans for selection. Genetics 175, 737–750 (2007). · DOI
  31. Narum, S. R. & Hess, J. E. Comparison of FST outlier tests for SNP loci under selection. Mol. Ecol. Resources 11, 184–194 (2011). · DOI
  32. Pérez-Figueroa, A., García-Pereira, M. J., Saura, M., Rolán-Alvarez, E. & Caballero, A. Comparing three different methods to detect selective loci using dominant markers. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2267–2276 (2010). · DOI
  33. Vilas, A., Pérez-Figueroa, A. & Caballero, A. A simulation study on the performance of differentiation-based methods to detect selected loci using linked neutral markers. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 1364–1376 (2012). · DOI
  34. Edelaar, P., Burraco, P. & Gomez-Mestre, I. Comparisons between QST and FST - how wrong have we been? Mol. Ecol. 20, 4830–4839 (2011). · DOI
  35. Edelaar, P. & Björklund, M. If FST does not measure neutral genetic differentiation, then comparing it with QST is misleading. Or is it? Mol. Ecol. 20, 1805–1812 (2011). · DOI
  36. Lercher, M. J. & Hurst, L. D. Human SNP variability and mutation rate are higher in regions of high recombination. Trends Genet. 18, 337–340 (2002). · DOI
  37. Hodgkinson, A., Ladoukakis, E. & Eyre-Walker, A. Cryptic variation in the human mutation rate. PLoS Biol. 7, 226–232 (2009). · DOI
  38. Le Corre, V. & Kremer, A. The genetic differentiation at quantitative trait loci under local adaptation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1548–1566 (2012). An excellent theoretical treatment and review of factors influencing the utility of Q ST –F ST comparisons. · DOI
  39. Albrechtsen, A., Nielsen, F. C. & Nielsen, R. Ascertainment biases in SNP chips affect measures of population divergence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 2534–2547 (2010). · DOI
  40. Helyar, S. J. et al. Application of SNPs for population genetics of nonmodel organisms: new opportunities and challenges. Mol. Ecol. Resources 11, 123–136 (2011). · DOI
  41. Porcher, E., Giraud, T., Goldringer, I. & Lavigne, C. Experimental demonstration of a causal relationship between heterogeneity of selection and genetic differentiation in quantitative traits. Evolution 58, 1434–1445 (2004). · DOI
  42. Morgan, T. J., Evans, M. A., Garland, T., Swallow, J. G. & Carter, P. A. Molecular and quantitative genetic divergence among populations of house mice with known evolutionary histories. Heredity 94, 518–525 (2005). · DOI
  43. Hendry, A. P. QST>=≠< FST? Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 502 (2002). · DOI
  44. Lind, M. I., Ingvarsson, P. K., Johansson, H., Hall, D. & Johansson, F. Gene flow and selection on phenotypic plasticity in an island system of Rana temporaria. Evolution 65, 684–697 (2011). · DOI
  45. Alberto, F. et al. Adaptive responses for seed and leaf phenology in natural populations of sessile oak along an altitudinal gradient. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1442–1454 (2011). · DOI
  46. Holand, A. M., Jensen, H., Tufto, J. & Moe, R. Does selection or genetic drift explain geographic differentiation of morphological characters in house sparrows Passer domesticus? Genet. Res. 93, 367–379 (2011). · DOI
  47. Lamy, J.-B. et al. Uniform selection as a primary force reducing population genetic differentiation of cavitation resistance across a species range. PLoS ONE 6, e23476 (2011). · DOI
  48. Rogell, B. et al. Strong divergence in trait means but not in plasticity across hatchery and wild populations of sea-run brown trout Salmo trutta. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2963–2976 (2012). · DOI
  49. Whitlock, M. C. Neutral additive genetic variance in a metapopulation. Genet. Res. 74, 215–221 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  50. Goudet, J. & Büchi, L. The effects of dominance, regular inbreeding and sampling design on QST, an estimator of population differentiation for quantitative traits. Genetics 172, 1337–1347 (2006). · DOI
  51. Goudet, J. & Martin, G. Under neutrality, QST ≤ FST when there is dominance in an island model. Genetics 176, 1371–1374 (2007). · DOI
  52. López-Fanjul, C., Fernández, A. & Toro, M. A. The effect of neutral nonadditive gene action on the quantitative index of population divergence. Genetics 164, 1627–1633 (2003). · DOI
  53. López-Fanjul, C., Fernández, A. & Toro, M. A. The effect of dominance on the use of the QST-FST contrast to detect natural selection on quantitative traits. Genetics 176, 725–727 (2007). · DOI
  54. Halligan, D. L. & Keightley, P. D. Spontaneous mutation accumulation studies in evolutionary genetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat. 40, 151–172 (2009). · DOI
  55. Johnson, T. & Barton, N. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 1411–1425 (2005). · DOI
  56. Ellegren, H. Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 435–445 (2004). · DOI
  57. Houle, D., Morikawa, B. & Lynch, M. Comparing mutational variabilities. Genetics 143, 1467–1483 (1996). · DOI
  58. Caballero, A., Keightley, P. D. & Turelli, M. Average dominance for polygenes: drawbacks of regression estimates. Genetics 147, 1487–1490 (1997). · DOI
  59. Zhan, J. et al. Variation for neutral markers is correlated with variation for quantitative traits in the plant pathogenic fungus Mycosphaerella graminicola. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2683–2693 (2005). · DOI
  60. Zhan, J., Stefanato, F. L. & McDonald, B. A. Selection for increased cyproconazole tolerance in Mycosphaerella graminicola through local adaptation and in response to host resistance. Mol. Plant Pathol. 7, 259–268 (2006). · DOI
  61. Rogers, A. R. & Harpending, H. C. Population structure and quantitative characters. Genetics 105, 985–1002 (1983). · DOI
  62. Rogers, S. M., Gagnon, V. & Bernatchez, L. Genetically based phenotype-environment association for swimming behavior in lake whitefish ecotypes (Coregonus clupeaformis Mitchill). Evolution 56, 2322–2329 (2002). · DOI
  63. Saint-Laurent, R., Legault, M. & Bernatchez, L. Divergent selection maintains adaptive differentiation despite high gene flow between sympatric rainbow smelt ecotypes (Osmerus mordax Mitchill). Mol. Ecol. 12, 315–330 (2003). · DOI
  64. Savolainen, O., Pyhäjärvi, T. & Knürr, T. Gene flow and local adaptation in trees. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat. 38, 595–619 (2007). Contains an excellent review of Q ST –F ST studies carried out in forest trees. · DOI
  65. Keller, S. R. & Taylor, D. R. History, chance and adaptation during biological invasion: separating stochastic phenotypic evolution from response to selection. Ecol. Lett. 11, 852–866 (2008). · DOI
  66. Johansson, M., Primmer, C. R. & Merilä, J. Does habitat fragmentation reduce fitness and adaptability? A case study of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Mol. Ecol. 16, 2693–2700 (2007). · DOI
  67. Cousyn, C. et al. Rapid, local adaptation of zooplankton behavior to changes in predation pressure in the absence of neutral genetic changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6256–6260 (2001). · DOI
  68. Aykanat, T., Thrower, F. P. & Heath, D. D. Rapid evolution of osmoregulatory function by modification of gene transcription in steelhead trout. Genetica 139, 233–242 (2011). · DOI
  69. Koskinen, M. T., Haugen, T. O. & Primmer, C. R. Contemporary Fisherian life-history evolution in small salmonid populations. Nature 419, 826–830 (2002). · DOI
  70. Pelletier, F., Réale, D., Watters, J., Boakes, E. H. & Garant, D. Value of captive populations for quantitative genetics research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 263–270 (2009). · DOI
  71. Rhoné, B., Vitalis, R., Goldringer, I. & Bonnin, I. Evolution of flowering time in experimental wheat populations: a comprehensive approach to detect genetic signatures of natural selection. Evolution 64, 2110–2125 (2010).
  72. Crnokrak, P. & Merilä, J. Genetic population divergence: markers and traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 501–501 (2002). · DOI
  73. Nosil, P., Funk, D. J. & Ortiz-Barrientos, D. Divergent selection and heterogeneous genomic divergence. Mol. Ecol. 18, 375–402 (2009). · DOI
  74. Crnokrak, P. & Roff, D. A. Dominance variance - associations with selection and fitness. Heredity 75, 530–540 (1995). · DOI
  75. Latta, R. G. & McKay, J. K. Genetic population divergence: markers and traits - response. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 501–502 (2002). · DOI
  76. Whitehead, A. & Crawford, D. L. Variation within and among species in gene expression: raw material for evolution. Mol. Ecol. 15, 1197–1211 (2006). · DOI
  77. Whitehead, A. & Crawford, D. L. Neutral and adaptive variation in gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5425–5430 (2006). · DOI
  78. Kohn, M. H., Shapiro, J. & Wu, C. I. Decoupled differentiation of gene expression and coding sequence among Drosophila populations. Genes Genet. Systems 83, 265–273 (2008). · DOI
  79. Roberge, C., Guderley, H. & Bernatchez, L. Genomewide identification of genes under directional selection: gene transcription QST scan in diverging Atlantic salmon subpopulations. Genetics 177, 1011–1022 (2007). The first formal application of Q ST -based inference on transcriptome-wide data. · DOI
  80. Visscher, P. M. et al. Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet. 2, e41 (2006). · DOI
  81. Visscher, P. M. Whole genome approaches to quantitative genetics. Genetica 136, 351–358 (2009). · DOI
  82. Deary, I. J. et al. Genetic contributions to stability and change in intelligence from childhood to old age. Nature 482, 212–215 (2012). · DOI
  83. Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E., Visscher, P. M. & van der Werf, J. H. J. Using the realized relationship matrix to disentangle confounding factors for the estimation of genetic variance components of complex traits. Genet. Selection Evol. 42, 22 (2010). · DOI
  84. Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W. & Uller, T. Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science 334, 1512–1516 (2011). · DOI
  85. Houle, D. Numbering the hairs on our heads: the shared challenge and promise of phenomics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1793–1799 (2010). · DOI
  86. Houle, D., Govindaraju, D. R. & Omholt, S. Phenomics: the next challenge. Nature Rev. Genet. 11, 855–866 (2010). · DOI
  87. Le Corre, V. & Kremer, A. Genetic variability at neutral markers, quantitative trait loci and trait in a subdivided population under selection. Genetics 164, 1205–1219 (2003). · DOI
  88. Santure, A. W. & Wang, J. L. The joint effects of selection and dominance on the QST-FST contrast. Genetics 181, 259–276 (2009). · DOI
  89. Leinonen, T., Cano, J. M., Mäkinen, H. & Merilä, J. Contrasting patterns of body shape and neutral genetic divergence in marine and lake populations of threespine sticklebacks. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1803–1812 (2006). The first study to use the term P ST to refer to the phenotypic equivalent of Q ST. · DOI
  90. Pujol, B., Wilson, A. J., Ross, R. I. C. & Pannell, J. R. Are QST-FST comparisons for natural populations meaningful? Mol. Ecol. 17, 4782–4785 (2008). · DOI
  91. Lee, C. E. & Frost, B. W. Morphological stasis in the Eurytemora affinis species complex (Copepoda: Temoridae). Hydrobiologia 480, 111–128 (2002). · DOI
  92. Merilä, J. Quantitative trait and allozyme divergence in the greenfinch (Carduelis chloris, Aves: Fringillidae). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 61, 243–266 (1997). · DOI
  93. Conover, D. O., Duffy, T. A. & Hice, L. A. The covariance between genetic and environmental influences across ecological gradients reassessing the evolutionary significance of countergradient and cogradient variation. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1168, 100–129 (2009). · DOI
  94. Lande, R. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30, 314–334 (1976). · DOI · Paper page
  95. Lande, R. Statistical tests for natural selection on quantitative characters. Evolution 31, 442–444 (1977). · DOI
  96. Lynch, M. & Hill, W. G. Phenotypic evolution by neutral mutation. Evolution 40, 915–935 (1986). · DOI
  97. Lynch, M. Neutral models of phenotypic evolution. in Ecological Genetics (ed. Read, A. L.) 86–108 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1994).
  98. Lynch, M. The rate of morphological evolution in mammals from the standpoint of the neutral expectation. Am. Naturalist 136, 727–741 (1990). · DOI
  99. Baker, A. J. Genetic and morphometric divergence in ancestral European and descendent New Zealand populations of chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs) Evolution 46, 1784–1800 (1992).
  100. Egea, R., Casillas, S. & Barbadilla, A. Standard and generalized McDonald-Kreitman test: a website to detect selection by comparing different classes of DNA sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W157–W162 (2008). · DOI
  101. Luikart, G., England, P. R., Tallmon, D., Jordan, S. & Taberlet, P. The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nature Rev. Genet. 4, 981–994 (2003). · DOI
  102. Latta, R. G. Differentiation of allelic frequencies at quantitative trait loci affecting locally adaptive traits. Am. Naturalist 151, 283–292 (1998). · DOI
  103. Alho, J. S. et al. Allen's rule revisited: quantitative genetics of extremity length in the common frog along a latitudinal gradient. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 59–70 (2011). · DOI
  104. Antoniazza, S., Burri, R., Fumagalli, L., Goudet, J. & Roulin, A. Local adaptation maintains clinal variation in melanin-based coloration of European barn owls (Tyto alba). Evolution 64, 1944–1954 (2010).
  105. Kawakami, T. et al. Natural selection drives clinal life history patterns in the perennial sunflower species, Helianthus maximiliani. Mol. Ecol. 20, 2318–2328 (2011). · DOI
  106. Yu, Q., Ellen, E. D., Wade, M. J. & Delph, L. F. Genetic differences among populations in sexual dimorphism: evidence for selection on males in a dioecious plant. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1120–1127 (2011). · DOI
  107. Magalhaes, I. S., Mwaiko, S., Schneider, M. V. & Seehausen, O. Divergent selection and phenotypic plasticity during incipient speciation in Lake Victoria cichlid fish. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 260–274 (2009). · DOI
  108. Gay, L. et al. Speciation with gene flow in the large white-headed gulls: does selection counterbalance introgression? Heredity 102, 133–146 (2009). · DOI
  109. Wojcieszek, J. M. & Simmons, L. W. Evidence for stabilizing selection and slow divergent evolution of male genitalia in a millipede (Acatichiropus variabilis). Evolution 66, 1138–1153 (2012). · DOI
  110. Jiménez-Ambriz, G. et al. Life history variation in the heavy metal tolerant plant Thlaspi caerulescens growing in a network of contaminated and noncontaminated sites in southern France: role of gene flow, selection and phenotypic plasticity. New Phytol. 173, 199–215 (2007). · DOI
  111. Meyer, C.-L. et al. Variability of zinc tolerance among and within populations of the pseudometallophyte species Arabidopsis halleri and possible role of directional selection. New Phytol. 185, 130–142 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  112. Sreejayan, Kumar, U. S., Varghese, G., Jacob, T. M. & Thomas, G. Stratification and population structure of the genetic resources of ancient medicinal rice (Oryza sativa L.) landrace Njavara. Genet. Resources Crop Evol. 58, 697–711 (2011). · DOI
  113. Pressoir, G. & Berthaud, J. Population structure and strong divergent selection shape phenotypic diversification in maize landraces. Heredity 92, 95–101 (2004). · DOI
  114. McKay, J. K. et al. Local adaptation across a climatic gradient despite small effective population size in the rare sapphire rockcress. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268, 1715–1721 (2001). · DOI
  115. Gravuer, K., von Wettberg, E. & Schmitt, J. Population differentiation and genetic variation inform translocation decisions for Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae, a rare New England grassland perennial. Biol. Conserv. 124, 155–167 (2005). · DOI
  116. Price, A. L. et al. Effects of cis and trans genetic ancestry on gene expression in African Americans. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000294 (2008). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Leinonen, T., McCairns, R. J. S., O'Hara, R. B., & Merilä, J.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Merilä, Juha
ORCID
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-02-05
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
179-190
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
DOI
10.1038/nrg3395
OpenAlex
W2018112412
Cited by
422
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 18
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
QST-FST comparison, natural selection, genetic drift, genetic differentiation, polygenic traits, genomic heterogeneity, evolutionary genetics, ecological genetics, omics data analysis
MeSH terms
Animals, Ecology, Genetic Markers, Genetics, Population, Humans, Selection, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Genetic Heterogeneity, Evolution, Molecular, Genomics, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genetic Drift

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