Skip Navigation



MBE Advance Access published online on October 14, 2008
Molecular Biology and Evolution, doi:10.1093/molbev/msn231
This Article
Right arrow Advance Access manuscript (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/2/273    most recent
msn231v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhai, W.
Right arrow Articles by Slatkin, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhai, W.
Right arrow Articles by Slatkin, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Research Article

An investigation of the statistical power of neutrality tests based on comparative and population genetic data

Weiwei Zhai1,*, Rasmus Nielsen1,2 and Montgomery Slatkin1

1 Department of Integrative Biology, 3060 Valley Life Science Building, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3140
2 Centre for Comparative Genomics, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Kbh Ø, Copenhagen, Denmark

* Corresponding author. Email: weiweizhai{at}berkeley.edu, Phone: 510-643-6299. Fax: 510-643-6264

Received for publication June 4, 2008. Revision received September 20, 2008. Accepted for publication September 30, 2008.

In this report, we investigate the statistical power of several tests of selective neutrality based on patterns of genetic diversity within and between species. The goal is to compare tests based solely on population genetic data with tests using comparative data or a combination of comparative and population genetic data. We show that in the presence of repeated selective sweeps on relatively neutral background, tests based on the dn/ds ratios in comparative data almost always have more power to detect selection than tests based on population genetic data, even if the overall level of divergence is low. Tests based solely on the distribution of allele frequencies or the site frequency spectrum, such as the Ewens-Watterson test or Tajima's D, have less power in detecting both positive and negative selection because of the transient nature of positive selection and the weak signal left by negative selection. The Hudson-Kreitman Aguadé (HKA) test is the most powerful test for detecting positive selection among the population genetic tests investigated, while McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test typically has more power to detect negative selection. We discuss our findings in the light of the discordant results obtained in several recently published genomic scans.

Key Words: HKA test • Ewens-Watterson test • dN/dS • McDonald-Kreitman test • Tajima's D • neutrality test • genomic scan • statistical power


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
A. J. Eckert, A. D. Bower, J. L. Wegrzyn, B. Pande, K. D. Jermstad, K. V. Krutovsky, J. B. St. Clair, and D. B. Neale
Association Genetics of Coastal Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii, Pinaceae). I. Cold-Hardiness Related Traits
Genetics, August 1, 2009; 182(4): 1289 - 1302.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.