Back

Extending the IICR to multiple genomes and identification of limitations of some demographic inferential methods

Chikhi, L.; Rodriguez, W.; Paris, C.; Ha-Shan, M.; Jouniaux, A.; Arredondo, A.; Nous, C.; Grusea, S.; Corujo, J.; Lourenco, I.; Boitard, S.; Mazet, O.

2024-08-19 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.08.16.608273 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reconstructing the demographic history of populations and species is one of the greatest challenges facing population geneticists. [50] introduced, for a sample of size k = 2 haploid genomes, a time- and sample-dependent parameter which they called the IICR (inverse instantaneous coalescence rate). Here we extend their work to larger sample sizes and focus on Tk, the time to the first coalescence event in a haploid sample of size k where k [≥] 2. We define the IICRk as the Inverse Instantaneous Coalescence Rate among k lineages. We show that (i) under a panmictic population [Formula] is equivalent to Ne, (ii) the IICRk can be obtained by either simulating Tk values or by using the Q-matrix approach of [61] and we provide the corresponding Python and R scripts. We then study the properties of the [Formula] under a limited set of n-island and stepping-stone models. We show that (iii) in structured models the [Formula] is dependent on the sample size and on the sampling scheme, even when the genomes are sampled in the same deme. For instance, we find that [Formula] plots for individuals sampled in the same deme will be shifted towards recent times with a lower plateau as k increases. We thus show that (iv) the [Formula] cannot be used to represent "the demographic history" in a general sense, (v) the [Formula] can be estimated from real or simulated genomic data using the PSMC/MSMC methods [44, 65] (vi) the MSMC2 method produces smoother curves that infer something that is not the [Formula], but are close to the [Formula] in the recent past when all samples are obtained from the same deme. Altogether we argue that the PSMC, MSMC and MSMC2 plots are not expected to be identical even when the genomes are sampled from the same deme, that none can be said to represent the "demographic history of populations" and that they should be interpreted with care. We suggest that the PSMC, MSMC and MSMC2 could be used together with the [Formula] to identify the signature of population structure, and to develop new strategies for model choice.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
14.1%
3
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 1%
9.9%
4
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.2%
6
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
7
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
8
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.0%
9
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 25%
2.6%
10
Theoretical Population Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
12
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
13
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.2%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 68%
1.1%
17
Virus Evolution
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
21
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Nature Computational Science
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Journal of Heredity
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%