The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Genome-Scan Method to Identify Selected Loci Appropriate for Both Dominant and Codominant Markers: A Bayesian Perspective
Open accessAbstract
Identifying loci under natural selection from genomic surveys is of great interest in different research areas. Commonly used methods to separate neutral effects from adaptive effects are based on locus-specific population differentiation coefficients to identify outliers. Here we extend such an approach to estimate directly the probability that each locus is subject to selection using a Bayesian method. We also extend it to allow the use of dominant markers like AFLPs. It has been shown that this model is robust to complex demographic scenarios for neutral genetic differentiation. Here we show that the inclusion of isolated populations that underwent a strong bottleneck can lead to a high rate of false positives. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that it is possible to avoid them by carefully choosing the populations that should be included in the analysis. We analyze two previously published data sets: a human data set of codominant markers and a Littorina saxatilis data set of dominant markers. We also perform a detailed sensitivity study to compare the power of the method using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), SNP, and microsatellite markers. The method has been implemented in a new software available at our website (http://www-leca.ujf-grenoble.fr/logiciels.htm).
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
Cited by
Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence
Merilä, J., & Hendry, A. P. (2014) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.12137 · Cited by 1,369
Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions
Hoban, S., Kelley, J. L., Lotterhos, K. E., Antolin, M. F., Bradburd, G., Lowry, D. B., Poss, M. L., Reed, L. K., Storfer, A., & Whitlock, M. C. (2016) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/688018 · Cited by 876
“Early methods for differentiation outlier detection assumed that the study system followed the island model (assumed by fdist2 [Beau-mont and Nichols 1996]; table A1) or a multinomial Dirichlet distribution (e.g., BayeScan [Foll and Gaggiotti 2008]; table A1).”
Whiteley, A. R., Fitzpatrick, S. W., Funk, W. C., & Tallmon, D. A. (2015) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.009 · Cited by 813
Detecting Natural Selection in Genomic Data
Vitti, J. J., Grossman, S. R., & Sabeti, P. C. (2013) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-111212-133526 · Cited by 694
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
- Foll, M., & Gaggiotti, O.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-10-01
- Volume
- 180
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 977-993
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2162157671
- Cited by
- 2,736
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A Genome-Scan Method to Identify Selected Loci Appropriate for Both Dominant and Codominant Markers: A Bayesian Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.108.092221
- The paper
- Foll, M., & Gaggiotti, O. (2008). A Genome-Scan Method to Identify Selected Loci Appropriate for Both Dominant and Codominant Markers: A Bayesian Perspective. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.092221
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.