Cited by 194Genetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Genetic DynamicsAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Whither Pst? The approximation of Qst by Pst in evolutionary and conservation biology

BROMMER, J. E.·2011·Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Local adaptation through natural selection can be inferred in case the additive genetic divergence in a quantitative trait across populations (Q(st)) exceeds the neutral expectation based on differentiation of neutral alleles across these populations (e.g. F(st)). As such, measuring Q(st) in relation to neutral differentiation presents a first-line investigation applicable in evolutionary biology (selection on functional genes) and conservation biology (identification of locally adapted coding genes). However, many species, especially those in need of conservation actions, are not amenable for the kind of breeding design required to estimate either narrow- or broad-sense Q(st). In such cases, Q(st) has been approximated by the phenotypic divergence in a trait across populations (P(st)). I here argue that the critical aspect for how well P(st) approximates Q(st) depends on the extent that additive genetic effects determine variation between populations relative to within populations. I review how the sensitivity of conclusions regarding local adaptation based on P(st) have been evaluated in the literature and find that many studies make a anticonservative null assumption in estimating P(st) and/or use a nonconservative approach to explore sensitivity of their conclusions. Data from two studies that have provided a second, independent assessment of selection in their system suggest that P(st)-F(st) comparisons should be interpreted very conservatively. I conclude with recommendations for improving the robustness of the inferences drawn from comparing P(st) with neutral differentiation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02268.x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The notion that Qst takes the minimum value relies on h2 always being less than c, which is anticonservative.

    “However, the notion that this takes the minimum value of Qst relies on h2 always being less than c, which is anticonservative as has been noted previously [32].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BROMMER, J. E.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
BROMMER, J. E.
Venue
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Published
2011-04-04
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1160-1168
ISSN
1010-061X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1499702437
Cited by
194
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evolutionary Biology (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 › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
local adaptation, phenotypic divergence, quantitative sensory testing, PST, FST, selection inference, sensitivity analysis, conservation genetics, quantitative traits
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Conservation of Natural Resources, Biological Evolution, Phenotype, Population Dynamics, Selection, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Uncertainty, Quantitative Trait Loci

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