Exploring linkage disequilibrium
Open accessAbstract
Linkage disequilibrium (LD, association of allelic states across loci) is poorly understood by many evolutionary biologists, but as technology for multilocus sampling improves, we ignore LD at our peril. If we sample variation at 10 loci in an organism with 20 chromosomes, we can reasonably treat them as 10 ‘independent witnesses’ of the evolutionary process. If instead, we sample variation at 1000 loci, many are bound to be close together on a chromosome. With only one or two crossovers per meiosis, associations between close neighbours decay so slowly that even LD created far in the past will not have dissipated, so we cannot treat the 1000 loci as independent witnesses (Barton). This means that as marker density on genomes increases classic analyses assuming independent loci become mired in the problem of overconfidence: if 1000 independent witnesses are assumed, and that number should be much lower, any conclusion will be overconfident. This is of special concern because our literature suffers from a strong publication bias towards confident answers, even when they turn out to be wrong (Knowles). In contrast, analyses that take into account associations across loci both control for overconfidence and can inform us about LD generating events far in the past, for example human/Neanderthal admixture (Fu et al.). With increased marker density, biologists must increase their awareness of LD and, in this issue of Molecular Ecology Resources, Kemppainen et al. () make software available that can only help in this process:LD na allows patterns of LD in a data set to be explored using tools borrowed from network analysis. This has great potential, but realizing that potential requires understanding LD.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Linkage to positively selected alleles could impact neutral sites, leading to reduced diversity in genomic regions with low recombination rates.
“On the flip side, linkage to positively selected alleles could impact neutral sites in a similar way, leading to reduced diversity in genomic regions with low recombination rates (Baird, 2015).”
From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Baird, 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Baird, S. J. E.
- Affiliations
- Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
- Corresponding author
- Baird, Stuart J. E.
- ORCID
- Baird, Stuart J. E.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1017-1019
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W1563009212
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 2.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Molecular Ecology Resources (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
- Keywords
- linkage disequilibrium, marker density, overconfidence, publication bias, network analysis
- MeSH terms
- Genetics, Population, Software, Linkage Disequilibrium, Computational Biology
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