4.8 Article

Likelihood-Based Inferences under Isolation by Distance: Two-Dimensional Habitats and Confidence Intervals

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 957-973

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msr262

关键词

dispersal; maximum likelihood; coalescence; isolation by distance; microsatellites

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [EMILE NT09-611697]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Likelihood-based methods of inference of population parameters from genetic data in structured populations have been implemented but still little tested in large networks of populations. In this work, a previous software implementation of inference in linear habitats is extended to two-dimensional habitats, and the coverage properties of confidence intervals are analyzed in both cases. Both standard likelihood and an efficient approximation are considered. The effects of misspecification of mutation model and dispersal distribution, and of spatial binning of samples, are considered. In the absence of model misspecification, the estimators have low bias, low mean square error, and the coverage properties of confidence intervals are consistent with theoretical expectations. Inferences of dispersal parameters and of the mutation rate are sensitive to misspecification or to approximations inherent to the coalescent algorithms used. In particular, coalescent approximations are not appropriate to infer the shape of the dispersal distribution. However, inferences of the neighborhood parameter (or of the product of population density and mean square dispersal rate) are generally robust with respect to complicating factors, such as misspecification of the mutation process and of the shape of the dispersal distribution, and with respect to spatial binning of samples. Likelihood inferences appear feasible in moderately sized networks of populations (up to 400 populations in this work), and they are more efficient than previous moment-based spatial regression method in realistic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据