Cited by 1,375Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structurePleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology

Testing for ancient admixture between closely related populations

Open access
Durand, Eric Y., Patterson, Nick, Reich, David, Slatkin, Montgomery·2011·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

One enduring question in evolutionary biology is the extent of archaic admixture in the genomes of present-day populations. In this paper, we present a test for ancient admixture that exploits the asymmetry in the frequencies of the two nonconcordant gene trees in a three-population tree. This test was first applied to detect interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans. We derive the analytic expectation of a test statistic, called the D statistic, which is sensitive to asymmetry under alternative demographic scenarios. We show that the D statistic is insensitive to some demographic assumptions such as ancestral population sizes and requires only the assumption that the ancestral populations were randomly mating. An important aspect of D statistics is that they can be used to detect archaic admixture even when no archaic sample is available. We explore the effect of sequencing error on the false-positive rate of the test for admixture, and we show how to estimate the proportion of archaic ancestry in the genomes of present-day populations. We also investigate a model of subdivision in ancestral populations that can result in D statistics that indicate recent admixture.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/msr048

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Domestic helmeted guinea fowl from Sudan had significantly positive D values (Z > 3), suggesting gene flow between domestic helmeted guinea fowl from Sudan and wild helmeted guinea fowl from Kenya/Sudan.

    “D statistics (Durand et al. 2011) were calculated and showed that the domestic HGF from Sudan had significantly positive D values (Z > 3), suggesting gene flow between domestic HGF from Sudan and wild HGF from Kenya/Sudan (supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online).”
  • ARG-based estimates of genome-wide percent admixture are similar to, but lower than, D statistic-based estimates in all non-African genomes.

    “ARG-based estimates are similar to, but lower than, D statistic–based estimates in all non-African genomes, which we expected because of our aggressive filtering strategy for eliminating ILS”

    From An ancestral recombination graph of human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan genomes (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Application to Neandertal section discusses D statistics and reports that their values were lower for SNP data than for sequencing data. It does not compare ARG-based and D-statistic-based admixture estimates across non-African genomes. A search for ARG-based estimates and aggressive filtering of incomplete lineage sorting found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several methods (IBS tract, ∂a∂i, D statistics) were used to fully elucidate patterns of gene flow between polar and brown bear populations since their divergence.

    “To fully elucidate patterns of gene flow between polar and brown bear populations since their divergence, we used several methods: (i) the IBS tract method; (ii) ∂a∂i; and (iii) D statistics, also known as the ABBA-BABA test (Durand et al., 2011; Green et al., 2010) (Extended Experimental Procedures Section Gene Flow and Introgression).”

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
Durand, E. Y., Patterson, N., Reich, D., & Slatkin, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Durand, Eric Y.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2011-02-15
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
2239-2252
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2052395225
Cited by
1,375
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 123 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 137 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 15
FWCI
17.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM040282, R01‑GM40282)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Keywords
archaic admixture, D-statistic, interbreeding, sequencing errors, false positive rate, population subdivision
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Computer Simulation, Genetics, Population, Humans, Genetic Variation, Models, Statistical, Genome, Evolution, Molecular, Gene Flow

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