Cited by 111Genetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Genetic DynamicsForensic and Genetic Research

Detection of selective sweeps in structured populations: a comparison of recent methods

Open access
Vatsiou, Alexandra I., Bazin, Eric, Gaggiotti, Oscar E.·2016·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Identifying genomic regions targeted by positive selection has been a long‐standing interest of evolutionary biologists. This objective was difficult to achieve until the recent emergence of next‐generation sequencing, which is fostering the development of large‐scale catalogues of genetic variation for increasing number of species. Several statistical methods have been recently developed to analyse these rich data sets, but there is still a poor understanding of the conditions under which these methods produce reliable results. This study aims at filling this gap by assessing the performance of genome‐scan methods that consider explicitly the physical linkage among SNP s surrounding a selected variant. Our study compares the performance of seven recent methods for the detection of selective sweeps ( iHS , nSL , EHHST , xp‐ EHH , XP ‐ EHHST , XPCLR and hap FLK ). We use an individual‐based simulation approach to investigate the power and accuracy of these methods under a wide range of population models under both hard and soft sweeps. Our results indicate that XPCLR and hap FLK perform best and can detect soft sweeps under simple population structure scenarios if migration rate is low. All methods perform poorly with moderate‐to‐high migration rates, or with weak selection and very poorly under a hierarchical population structure. Finally, no single method is able to detect both starting and nearly completed selective sweeps. However, combining several methods ( XPCLR or hap FLK with iHS or nSL ) can greatly increase the power to pinpoint the selected region.

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.13360

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. John Wiley & Sons N O M E -S C A N S F O R S E L E C T I V E S W E E P S 101 1365294x, 2016, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13360, Wiley Online Library on [22/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vatsiou, A. I., Bazin, E., & Gaggiotti, O. E.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine UMR CNRS 5553 Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble France
Corresponding author
Gaggiotti, Oscar E.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-12
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
89-103
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2131888512
Cited by
111
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Marie-Curie Initial Training Network INTERCROSSING
  • MASTS
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
selective sweeps, positive selection, structured populations, genome scan, hapFLK, hyperpolarization-activated current, XP-EHH, population structure, migration rate, statistical power, linkage disequilibrium
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Genetics, Population, Genotype, Haplotypes, Genetic Linkage, Models, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Evolution, Molecular, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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