Gene flow biases population genetic inference of recombination rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimates of the rate of recombination are key to understanding a host of evolutionary processes as well as the evolution of recombination rate itself. Model-based population genetic methods that infer recombination rates from patterns of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genome have become a popular method to estimate rates of recombination. However, these LD-based methods make a variety of simplifying assumptions about the populations of interest that are often not met in natural populations. One such assumption is the absence of gene flow from other populations. Here, we use forward-time population genetic simulations of isolation-with-migration scenarios to explore how gene flow affects the accuracy of LD-based estimators of recombination rate. We find that moderate levels of gene flow can result in either the overestimation or underestimation of recombination rates by up to 20-50% depending on the timing of divergence. We also find that these biases can affect the detection of interpopulation differences in recombination rate, causing both false positive and false negatives depending on the scenario. We discuss future possibilities for mitigating these biases and recommend that investigators exercise caution and confirm that their study populations meet assumptions before deploying these methods.
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 | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".