An exact formula for the contribution of sampling error to r 2, a common measure of linkage disequilibrium
Abstract
Interest in quantifying linkage disequilibrium (LD, non-random associations of alleles at different loci) has skyrocketed in recent years as researchers have focused on use of LD in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), for studying historical demography, and for estimating effective population size (Ne). The most widely used LD metric is r2 = the squared correlation of alleles at a pair of loci. Despite a half century of efforts, developing an unbiased expectation of r2 as a function of the many factors that can affect it (physical linkage, genetic drift, selection, migration, mutation, mating systems) remains elusive. Furthermore, even when all of these other factors are absent, empirical estimates of r2 are upwardly biased by sampling a finite number (S) of individuals, and that must be accounted for if one wants to focus on the desired signal of LD. Previous approaches to estimate ${r}_{sample}^2$ have been shown to be biased to greater or lesser degrees. The purpose of this short paper is to demonstrate that a simple and exact expression for $E\left({r}_{sample}^2\right)$ does exist for the special case where sampling error is the only factor contributing to r2, in which case $E\left({r}_{sample}^2\right)=1/\left(S-1\right)$. When other factors contribute heavily to LD, $E\left({r}_{sample}^2\right)$ shrinks toward 0 as empirical r2 ➔ 1. However, for estimating contemporary Ne with unlinked markers, empirical r2 will generally be small and $1/\left(S-1\right)$ will provide a robust estimate of $E\left({r}_{sample}^2\right)$.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Waples, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Waples, Robin S
- ORCID
- Waples, Robin S
- Venue
- Journal of Heredity
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-10-24
- ISSN
- 0022-1503 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7333
- OpenAlex
- W7223449131
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Heredity (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- linkage disequilibrium, R2, sampling error, finite-sample bias, effective population size, genome-wide association study, historical demography, 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