Bias and Precision in QST Estimates: Problems and Some Solutions
Open Access
- 1 November 2005
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Genetics
- Vol. 171 (3) , 1331-1339
- https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.044545
Abstract
Comparison of population differentiation in neutral marker genes and in genes coding quantitative traits by means of FST and QST indexes has become commonplace practice. While the properties and estimation of FST have been the subject of much interest, little is known about the precision and possible bias in QST estimates. Using both simulated and real data, we investigated the precision and bias in QST estimates and various methods of estimating the precision. We found that precision of QST estimates for typical data sets (i.e., with <20 populations) was poor. Of the methods for estimating the precision, a simulation method, a parametric bootstrap, and the Bayesian approach returned the most precise estimates of the confidence intervals.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparing Bayesian estimates of genetic differentiation of molecular markers and quantitative traits: an application to Pinus sylvestrisHeredity, 2005
- POPULATION DIFFERENTIATION IN G MATRIX STRUCTURE DUE TO NATURAL SELECTION IN RANA TEMPORARIAEvolution, 2004
- The Interplay of Bayesian and Frequentist AnalysisStatistical Science, 2004
- POPULATION DIFFERENTIATION IN G MATRIX STRUCTURE DUE TO NATURAL SELECTION IN RANA TEMPORARIAEvolution, 2004
- QST > = ≠ < FST?Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002
- Genetic population divergence: markers and traitsTrends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002
- Contemporary fisherian life-history evolution in small salmonid populationsNature, 2002
- Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traitsTrends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002
- PATTERNS OF GENETIC ARCHITECTURE FOR LIFE-HISTORY TRAITS AND MOLECULAR MARKERS IN A SUBDIVIDED SPECIESEvolution, 2001
- The jackknife-a reviewBiometrika, 1974