Cited by 73Genetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Genetic DynamicsForensic and Genetic Research

Background selection and F ST : Consequences for detecting local adaptation

Matthey‐Doret, Remi, Whitlock, Michael C.·2019·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Abstract Background selection is a process whereby recurrent deleterious mutations cause a decrease in the effective population size and genetic diversity at linked loci. Several authors have suggested that variation in the intensity of background selection could cause variation in F ST across the genome, which could confound signals of local adaptation in genome scans. We performed realistic simulations of DNA sequences, using recombination maps from humans and sticklebacks, to investigate how variation in the intensity of background selection affects F ST and other statistics of population differentiation in sexual, outcrossing species. We show that, in populations connected by gene flow, Weir and Cockerham's (1984; Evolution , 38 , 1358) estimator of F ST is largely insensitive to locus‐to‐locus variation in the intensity of background selection. Unlike F ST , however, d XY is negatively correlated with background selection. Moreover, background selection does not greatly affect the false‐positive rate in F ST outlier studies in populations connected by gene flow. Overall, our study indicates that background selection will not greatly interfere with finding the variants responsible for local adaptation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/mec.15197

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • More recent simulations found that FST outliers were unlikely to be driven by background selection.

    “This is consistent with more recent simulations, which found that FST outliers were unlikely to be driven by background selection (Matthey-Doret and Whitlock, 2019).”

    From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Matthey-Doret and Whitlock, 2019

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 72 · Cited by 73

Authors
Matthey‐Doret, R., & Whitlock, M. C.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Matthey‐Doret, Remi
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-09
Volume
28
Issue
17
Pages
3902-3914
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2966463892
Cited by
73
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN‐2016‐03779)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (P1SKP3_168393)
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
background selection, FST, local adaptation, genome scan, genetic differentiation, Dxy, gene flow, false positive rate, deleterious mutations, recombination maps, stickleback, outcrossing species
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Computer Simulation, Humans, Recombination, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Genome, Human, Smegmamorpha

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