The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Controlling the False-Positive Rate in Multilocus Genome Scans for Selection
Open accessAbstract
Rapid typing of genetic variation at many regions of the genome is an efficient way to survey variability in natural populations in an effort to identify segments of the genome that have experienced recent natural selection. Following such a genome scan, individual regions may be chosen for further sequencing and a more detailed analysis of patterns of variability, often to perform a parametric test for selection and to estimate the strength of a recent selective sweep. We show here that not accounting for the ascertainment of loci in such analyses leads to false inference of natural selection when the true model is selective neutrality, because the procedure of choosing unusual loci (in comparison to the rest of the genome-scan data) selects regions of the genome with genealogies similar to those expected under models of recent directional selection. We describe a simple and efficient correction for this ascertainment bias, which restores the false-positive rate to near-nominal levels. For the parameters considered here, we find that obtaining a test with the expected distribution of P-values depends on accurately accounting both for ascertainment of regions and for demography. Finally, we use simulations to explore the utility of relying on outlier loci to detect recent selective sweeps. We find that measures of diversity and of population differentiation are more effective than summaries of the site-frequency spectrum and that sequencing larger regions (2.5 kbp) in genome-scan studies leads to more power to detect recent selective sweeps.
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
The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene
Smith, J. M., & Haigh, J. (1974) · Genetical Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672300014634 · Cited by 3,415
Genomic regions exhibiting positive selection identified from dense genotype data
Carlson, C. S., Thomas, D. J., Eberle, M. A., Swanson, J. E., Livingston, R. J., Rieder, M. J., & Nickerson, D. A. (2005) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.4326505 · Cited by 298
Thornton, K., & Andolfatto, P. (2006) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.105.048223 · Cited by 256
Self-citation
Cited by
A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome
Green, R. E., Krause, J., Briggs, A. W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N., Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M. H.-Y., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1188021 · Cited by 4,318
Self-citationSignals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations
Pickrell, J. K., Coop, G., Novembre, J., Kudaravalli, S., Li, J. Z., Absher, D., Srinivasan, B. S., Barsh, G. S., Myers, R. M., Feldman, M. W., et al. (2009) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.087577.108 · Cited by 717
A new approach for using genome scans to detect recent positive selection in the human genome
Tang, K., Thornton, K. R., & Stoneking, M. (2007) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050171 · Cited by 489
Self-citationConstructing genomic maps of positive selection in humans: Where do we go from here?
Akey, J. M. (2009) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.086652.108 · Cited by 426
QST–FST comparisons: evolutionary and ecological insights from genomic heterogeneity
Leinonen, T., McCairns, R. J. S., O'Hara, R. B., & Merilä, J. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3395 · Cited by 422
Metadata
- Authors
- Thornton, K. R., & Jensen, J. D.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-02-01
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 737-750
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2156169823
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Controlling the False-Positive Rate in Multilocus Genome Scans for Selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.106.064642
- The paper
- Thornton, K. R., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). Controlling the False-Positive Rate in Multilocus Genome Scans for Selection. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.064642
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.