The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing population structure: FST and related measures
Abstract
Although FST is widely used as a measure of population structure, it has been criticized recently because of its dependency on within‐population diversity. This dependency can lead to difficulties in interpretation and in the comparison of estimates among species or among loci and has led to the development of two replacement statistics, F′ST and D. F′ST is the normal FST standardized by the maximum value it can obtain, given the observed within‐population diversity. D uses a multiplicative partitioning of diversity, based on the effective number of alleles rather than on the expected heterozygosity. In this study, we review the relationships between the three classes of statistics (FST, F′ST and D), their estimation and their properties. We illustrate the relationships between the statistics using a data set of estimates from 84 species taken from the last 4 years of Molecular Ecology. As with FST, unbiased estimators are available for the two new statistics D and F′ST. Here, we develop a new unbiased F′ST estimator based on GST, which we call G′′ST. However, F′ST can be calculated using any FST estimator for which the maximum value can be obtained. As all three statistics have their advantages and their drawbacks, we recommend continued use of FST in combination with either F′ST or D. In most cases, F′ST would be the best choice among the latter two as it is most suited for inferences of the influence of demographic processes such as genetic drift and migration on genetic population structure.
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
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E., & Quattro, J. M. (1992) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/131.2.479 · Cited by 13,929
Cited by
Detecting Natural Selection in Genomic Data
Vitti, J. J., Grossman, S. R., & Sabeti, P. C. (2013) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-111212-133526 · Cited by 694
QST–FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity
Leinonen, T., McCairns, R. J. S., O'Hara, R. B., & Merilä, J. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3395 · Cited by 422
Pinzón, J. H., Sampayo, E., Cox, E., Chauka, L. J., Chen, C. A., Voolstra, C. R., & LaJeunesse, T. C. (2013) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.12110 · Cited by 169
Chromosomal Evolution and Patterns of Introgression in Helianthus
Barb, J. G., Bowers, J. E., Renaut, S., Rey, J. I., Knapp, S. J., Rieseberg, L. H., & Burke, J. M. (2014) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165548 · Cited by 55
Caputo, B., Nwakanma, D., Caputo, F. P., Jawara, M., Oriero, E. C., Hamid‐Adiamoh, M., Dia, I., Konate, L., Petrarca, V., Pinto, J., et al. (2014) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12866 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- MEIRMANS, P. G., & HEDRICK, P. W.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-10-26
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-18
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W1811495593
- Cited by
- 1,181
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.36
- 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.