Cited by 30Forensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic diversity and population structureGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Detecting selection in low-coverage high-throughput sequencing data using principal component analysis

Open access
Meisner, Jonas, Albrechtsen, Anders, Hanghøj, Kristian·2021·BMC Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Identification of selection signatures between populations is often an important part of a population genetic study. Leveraging high-throughput DNA sequencing larger sample sizes of populations with similar ancestries has become increasingly common. This has led to the need of methods capable of identifying signals of selection in populations with a continuous cline of genetic differentiation. Individuals from continuous populations are inherently challenging to group into meaningful units which is why existing methods rely on principal components analysis for inference of the selection signals. These existing methods require called genotypes as input which is problematic for studies based on low-coverage sequencing data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have extended two principal component analysis based selection statistics to genotype likelihood data and applied them to low-coverage sequencing data from the 1000 Genomes Project for populations with European and East Asian ancestry to detect signals of selection in samples with continuous population structure. RESULTS: Here, we present two selections statistics which we have implemented in the PCAngsd framework. These methods account for genotype uncertainty, opening for the opportunity to conduct selection scans in continuous populations from low and/or variable coverage sequencing data. To illustrate their use, we applied the methods to low-coverage sequencing data from human populations of East Asian and European ancestries and show that the implemented selection statistics can control the false positive rate and that they identify the same signatures of selection from low-coverage sequencing data as state-of-the-art software using high quality called genotypes. CONCLUSION: We show that selection scans of low-coverage sequencing data of populations with similar ancestry perform on par with that obtained from high quality genotype data. Moreover, we demonstrate that PCAngsd outperform selection statistics obtained from called genotypes from low-coverage sequencing data without the need for ad-hoc filtering.

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 · 10.1186/s12859-021-04375-2

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • A previous study using principal components analysis found that samples were separated on the PC2 axis by read length rather than population, which could have led to misinformed interpretations.

    “For example, a previous study using principal components analysis found that samples were separated on the PC2 axis by read length rather than population (Meisner et al. 2021), which could have led to misinformed interpretations.”

    From Unravelling reference bias in ancient DNA datasets (2024) · cites this paper as Meisner et al. 2021

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meisner, J., Albrechtsen, A., & Hanghøj, K.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2021-09-29
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
470-470
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3201939971
Cited by
30
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF20OC0061343)
  • Det Frie Forskningsråd (DFF 0135-00211B)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
natural selection detection, low-pass sequencing, genotype likelihoods, principal component analysis, selection signatures, 1000 Genomes Project, European ancestry, East Asian ancestry, genotype uncertainty, false positive rate control
MeSH terms
Genetics, Population, Genotype, Humans, Genome, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Principal Component Analysis, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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