Variation in recombination rate affects detection of outliers in genome scans under neutrality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome scans can potentially identify genetic loci involved in evolutionary processes such as local adaptation and gene flow. Here, we show that recombination rate variation across a neutrally evolving genome gives rise to mixed sampling distributions of mean F ST ( ), a common population genetic summary statistic. In particular, we show that in regions of low recombination the distribution of estimates has more variance and a longer tail than in more highly recombining regions. Determining outliers from the genome‐wide distribution without taking local recombination rate into consideration may therefore increase the frequency of false positives in low recombination regions and be overly conservative in more highly recombining ones. We perform genome scans on simulated and empirical Drosophila melanogaster data sets and, in both cases, find patterns consistent with this neutral model. Similar patterns are observed for other summary statistics used to capture variation in the coalescent process. Linked selection, particularly background selection, is often invoked to explain heterogeneity in across the genome, but here we point out that even under neutrality, statistical artefacts can arise due to variation in recombination rate. Our results highlight a flaw in the design of genome‐scan studies and suggest that without estimates of local recombination rate, interpreting the genomic landscape of any summary statistic that captures variation in the coalescent process will be very difficult.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".