The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The program structure does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem
Abstract
Inferences of population structure and more precisely the identification of genetically homogeneous groups of individuals are essential to the fields of ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology. Such population structure inferences are routinely investigated via the program structure implementing a Bayesian algorithm to identify groups of individuals at Hardy–Weinberg and linkage equilibrium. While the method is performing relatively well under various population models with even sampling between subpopulations, the robustness of the method to uneven sample size between subpopulations and/or hierarchical levels of population structure has not yet been tested despite being commonly encountered in empirical data sets. In this study, I used simulated and empirical microsatellite data sets to investigate the impact of uneven sample size between subpopulations and/or hierarchical levels of population structure on the detected population structure. The results demonstrated that uneven sampling often leads to wrong inferences on hierarchical structure and downward‐biased estimates of the true number of subpopulations. Distinct subpopulations with reduced sampling tended to be merged together, while at the same time, individuals from extensively sampled subpopulations were generally split, despite belonging to the same panmictic population. Four new supervised methods to detect the number of clusters were developed and tested as part of this study and were found to outperform the existing methods using both evenly and unevenly sampled data sets. Additionally, a subsampling strategy aiming to reduce sampling unevenness between subpopulations is presented and tested. These results altogether demonstrate that when sampling evenness is accounted for, the detection of the correct population structure is greatly improved.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
PCA-based population structure inference with generic clustering algorithms
Lee, C., Abdool, A., & Huang, C.-H. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-s1-s73 · Cited by 97
Cited by
A tutorial on how not to over-interpret STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE bar plots
Lawson, D. J., van Dorp, L., & Falush, D. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05257-7 · Cited by 560
The origin of domestication genes in goats
Zheng, Z., Wang, X., Li, M., Li, Y., Yang, Z., Wang, X., Pan, X., Gong, M., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., et al. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz5216 · Cited by 184
Barth, J. M. I., Damerau, M., Matschiner, M., Jentoft, S., & Hanel, R. (2017) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evx067 · Cited by 62
“To account for putative biases in the inference of the true number of K by uneven sample sizes (Puechmaille 2016), cluster membership was also investigated with an even sampling scheme of 5 individuals each from CAP, SOU, OMA, and JAP, 1088 Genome Biol.”
BackgroundMethodLausen, C. L., Proctor, M., Nagorsen, D. W., Burles, D., Paetkau, D., Harmston, E., Blejwas, K., Govindarajulu, P., & Friis, L. (2019) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/cjz-2018-0113 · Cited by 15
Shults, P., Eyer, P., Moran, M., Chura, M., Ko, A., & Vargo, E. L. (2022) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.6849 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Puechmaille, S. J.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-03-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 608-627
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W2256193935
- Cited by
- 1,010
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 54.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.