Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

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

De Mita, Stéphane, Thuillet, Anne‐Céline, Gay, Laurène, Ahmadi, Nourollah, Manel, Stéphanie, Ronfort, Joëlle, Vigouroux, Yves·2013·Molecular Ecology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/mec.12182

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 382

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.