The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of FST outlier tests for SNP loci under selection
Abstract
Genome scans with many genetic markers provide the opportunity to investigate local adaptation in natural populations and identify candidate genes under selection. In particular, SNPs are dense throughout the genome of most organisms and are commonly observed in functional genes making them ideal markers to study adaptive molecular variation. This approach has become commonly employed in ecological and population genetics studies to detect outlier loci that are putatively under selection. However, there are several challenges to address with outlier approaches including genotyping errors, underlying population structure and false positives, variation in mutation rate and limited sensitivity (false negatives). In this study, we evaluated multiple outlier tests and their type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) error rates in a series of simulated data sets. Comparisons included simulation procedures (FDIST2, arlequin v.3.5 and BAYESCAN) as well as more conventional tools such as global FST histograms. Of the three simulation methods, FDIST2 and BAYESCAN typically had the lowest type II error, BAYESCAN had the least type I error and Arlequin had highest type I and II error. High error rates in Arlequin with a hierarchical approach were partially because of confounding scenarios where patterns of adaptive variation were contrary to neutral structure; however, Arlequin consistently had highest type I and type II error in all four simulation scenarios tested in this study. Given the results provided here, it is important that outlier loci are interpreted cautiously and error rates of various methods are taken into consideration in studies of adaptive molecular variation, especially when hierarchical structure is included.
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., & LISCHER, H. E. L. (2010) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x · Cited by 16,326
GENEPOP (Version 1.2): Population Genetics Software for Exact Tests and Ecumenicism
Raymond, M., & Rousset, F. (1995) · Journal of Heredity · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111573 · Cited by 15,397
Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies
Price, A. L., Patterson, N. J., Plenge, R. M., Weinblatt, M. E., Shadick, N. A., & Reich, D. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1847 · Cited by 10,248
Foll, M., & Gaggiotti, O. (2008) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.108.092221 · Cited by 2,736
A STANDARDIZED GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION MEASURE
Hedrick, P. W. (2005) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01814.x · Cited by 1,909
Greig, C., Jacobson, D. P., & Banks, M. A. (2003) · Molecular Ecology Notes · doi:10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00455.x · Cited by 1,610
Evaluating loci for use in the genetic analysis of population structure.
(1996) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0237 · Cited by 1,535
The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing
Luikart, G., England, P. R., Tallmon, D., Jordan, S., & Taberlet, P. (2003) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1226 · Cited by 1,365
Use of Unlinked Genetic Markers to Detect Population Stratification in Association Studies
Pritchard, J. K., & Rosenberg, N. A. (1999) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/302449 · Cited by 1,198
Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans
Beaumont, M. A., & Balding, D. J. (2004) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02125.x · Cited by 1,129
Cited by
Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units
Funk, W. C., McKay, J. K., Hohenlohe, P. A., & Allendorf, F. W. (2012) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.012 · Cited by 1,117
Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions
Hoban, S., Kelley, J. L., Lotterhos, K. E., Antolin, M. F., Bradburd, G., Lowry, D. B., Poss, M. L., Reed, L. K., Storfer, A., & Whitlock, M. C. (2016) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/688018 · Cited by 876
“Although a number of simulation studies have compared the power of different approaches (Pérez-Figueroa et al. 2010; Narum and Hess 2011; Vilas et al. 2012; De Mita et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013; de Villemereuil et al. 2014; Forester et al. 2015), only a few have captured effects of allele sur fi…”
Fitzpatrick, M. C., & Keller, S. R. (2015) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12376 · Cited by 699
Lotterhos, K. E., & Whitlock, M. C. (2014) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12725 · Cited by 526
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
Metadata
- Authors
- NARUM, S. R., & HESS, J. E.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 184-194
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W2112476384
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 19.55
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of FST outlier tests for SNP loci under selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.02987.x
- The paper
- NARUM, S. R., & HESS, J. E. (2011). Comparison of FST outlier tests for SNP loci under selection. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.02987.x
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.