Selection leads to false inferences of introgression using popular methods.

IF 3.3 3区 生物学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Genetics Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1093/genetics/iyae089
Megan L Smith, Matthew W Hahn
{"title":"Selection leads to false inferences of introgression using popular methods.","authors":"Megan L Smith, Matthew W Hahn","doi":"10.1093/genetics/iyae089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Detecting introgression between closely related populations or species is a fundamental objective in evolutionary biology. Existing methods for detecting migration and inferring migration rates from population genetic data often assume a neutral model of evolution. Growing evidence of the pervasive impact of selection on large portions of the genome across diverse taxa suggests that this assumption is unrealistic in most empirical systems. Further, ignoring selection has previously been shown to negatively impact demographic inferences (e.g. of population size histories). However, the impacts of biologically realistic selection on inferences of migration remain poorly explored. Here, we simulate data under models of background selection, selective sweeps, balancing selection, and adaptive introgression. We show that ignoring selection sometimes leads to false inferences of migration in popularly used methods that rely on the site frequency spectrum. Specifically, balancing selection and some models of background selection result in the rejection of isolation-only models in favor of isolation-with-migration models and lead to elevated estimates of migration rates. BPP, a method that analyzes sequence data directly, showed false positives for all conditions at recent divergence times, but balancing selection also led to false positives at medium-divergence times. Our results suggest that such methods may be unreliable in some empirical systems, such that new methods that are robust to selection need to be developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48925,"journal":{"name":"Genetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyae089","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Detecting introgression between closely related populations or species is a fundamental objective in evolutionary biology. Existing methods for detecting migration and inferring migration rates from population genetic data often assume a neutral model of evolution. Growing evidence of the pervasive impact of selection on large portions of the genome across diverse taxa suggests that this assumption is unrealistic in most empirical systems. Further, ignoring selection has previously been shown to negatively impact demographic inferences (e.g. of population size histories). However, the impacts of biologically realistic selection on inferences of migration remain poorly explored. Here, we simulate data under models of background selection, selective sweeps, balancing selection, and adaptive introgression. We show that ignoring selection sometimes leads to false inferences of migration in popularly used methods that rely on the site frequency spectrum. Specifically, balancing selection and some models of background selection result in the rejection of isolation-only models in favor of isolation-with-migration models and lead to elevated estimates of migration rates. BPP, a method that analyzes sequence data directly, showed false positives for all conditions at recent divergence times, but balancing selection also led to false positives at medium-divergence times. Our results suggest that such methods may be unreliable in some empirical systems, such that new methods that are robust to selection need to be developed.

使用流行的方法,选择会导致错误的引种推断。
检测近亲种群或物种之间的引入是进化生物学的一个基本目标。从种群遗传数据中检测迁移和推断迁移率的现有方法通常假定进化模型是中性的。越来越多的证据表明,在不同的类群中,选择对基因组的大部分产生了普遍影响,这表明这一假设在大多数实证系统中都是不现实的。此外,以前的研究表明,忽略选择会对人口推断(如种群规模历史)产生负面影响。然而,生物现实选择对迁移推断的影响仍未得到充分探讨。在此,我们模拟了背景选择、选择性横扫、平衡选择和适应性引入等模型下的数据。我们发现,在依赖于位点频谱(SFS)的常用方法中,忽略选择有时会导致错误的迁移推断。具体来说,平衡选择和某些背景选择模型会导致纯隔离模型被摒弃,转而采用带迁移的隔离模型,并导致对迁移率的估计值升高。BPP是一种直接分析序列数据的方法,它在最近的分化时间内对所有条件都显示出假阳性,但在中等分化时间内平衡选择也会导致假阳性。我们的研究结果表明,这种方法在某些经验系统中可能并不可靠,因此需要开发对选择具有鲁棒性的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Genetics
Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
177
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: GENETICS is published by the Genetics Society of America, a scholarly society that seeks to deepen our understanding of the living world by advancing our understanding of genetics. Since 1916, GENETICS has published high-quality, original research presenting novel findings bearing on genetics and genomics. The journal publishes empirical studies of organisms ranging from microbes to humans, as well as theoretical work. While it has an illustrious history, GENETICS has changed along with the communities it serves: it is not your mentor''s journal. The editors make decisions quickly – in around 30 days – without sacrificing the excellence and scholarship for which the journal has long been known. GENETICS is a peer reviewed, peer-edited journal, with an international reach and increasing visibility and impact. All editorial decisions are made through collaboration of at least two editors who are practicing scientists. GENETICS is constantly innovating: expanded types of content include Reviews, Commentary (current issues of interest to geneticists), Perspectives (historical), Primers (to introduce primary literature into the classroom), Toolbox Reviews, plus YeastBook, FlyBook, and WormBook (coming spring 2016). For particularly time-sensitive results, we publish Communications. As part of our mission to serve our communities, we''ve published thematic collections, including Genomic Selection, Multiparental Populations, Mouse Collaborative Cross, and the Genetics of Sex.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信