The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting selection along environmental gradients: analysis of eight methods and their effectiveness for outbreeding and selfing populations
Abstract
Thanks to genome‐scale diversity data, present‐day studies can provide a detailed view of how natural and cultivated species adapt to their environment and particularly to environmental gradients. However, due to their sensitivity, up‐to‐date studies might be more sensitive to undocumented demographic effects such as the pattern of migration and the reproduction regime. In this study, we provide guidelines for the use of popular or recently developed statistical methods to detect footprints of selection. We simulated 100 populations along a selective gradient and explored different migration models, sampling schemes and rates of self‐fertilization. We investigated the power and robustness of eight methods to detect loci potentially under selection: three designed to detect genotype–environment correlations and five designed to detect adaptive differentiation (based on FST or similar measures). We show that genotype–environment correlation methods have substantially more power to detect selection than differentiation‐based methods but that they generally suffer from high rates of false positives. This effect is exacerbated whenever allele frequencies are correlated, either between populations or within populations. Our results suggest that, when the underlying genetic structure of the data is unknown, a number of robust methods are preferable. Moreover, in the simulated scenario we used, sampling many populations led to better results than sampling many individuals per population. Finally, care should be taken when using methods to identify genotype–environment correlations without correcting for allele frequency autocorrelation because of the risk of spurious signals due to allele frequency correlations between populations.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
(2005) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,133
ESTIMATING F -STATISTICS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POPULATION STRUCTURE
Weir, B. S., & Cockerham, C. C. (1984) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb05657.x · Cited by 19,066
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language
Paradis, E., Claude, J., & Strimmer, K. (2004) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412 · Cited by 11,335
Inbreeding effects in wild populations
Keller, L. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02489-8 · Cited by 3,309
Foll, M., & Gaggiotti, O. (2008) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.108.092221 · Cited by 2,736
Akaike's Information Criterion in Generalized Estimating Equations
Pan, W. (2001) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00120.x · Cited by 2,493
Schoen, D., & Endler, J. A. (1987) · Taxon · doi:10.2307/1221470 · Cited by 1,548
Cited by
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
“On simulated data sets, these methods have reduced or similar false positive rates compared to methods based on demographic null models but still have somewhat elevated false positive rates under a range expansion scenario (De Mita et al. 2013; Lotterhos and Whitlock 2014).”
InfluentialPopulation genomics for wildlife conservation and management
Hohenlohe, P. A., Funk, W. C., & Rajora, O. P. (2021) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.15720 · Cited by 702
LFMM 2: Fast and Accurate Inference of Gene-Environment Associations in Genome-Wide Studies
Caye, K., Jumentier, B., Lepeule, J., & François, O. (2019) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msz008 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- De Mita, S., Thuillet, A., Gay, L., Ahmadi, N., Manel, S., Ronfort, J., & Vigouroux, Y.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-01-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1383-1399
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2164371921
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 26.10
- 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: Detecting selection along environmental gradients: analysis of eight methods and their effectiveness for outbreeding and selfing populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.12182
- The paper
- De Mita, S., Thuillet, A., Gay, L., Ahmadi, N., Manel, S., Ronfort, J., & Vigouroux, Y. (2013). Detecting selection along environmental gradients: analysis of eight methods and their effectiveness for outbreeding and selfing populations. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12182
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.