Cargando…

Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants

In a pair of seminal papers, Sewall Wright and Gustave Malécot introduced F(ST) as a measure of structure in natural populations. In the decades that followed, a number of papers provided differing definitions, estimation methods, and interpretations beyond Wright's. While this diversity in met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhatia, Gaurav, Patterson, Nick, Sankararaman, Sriram, Price, Alkes L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.154831.113
_version_ 1782282671859171328
author Bhatia, Gaurav
Patterson, Nick
Sankararaman, Sriram
Price, Alkes L.
author_facet Bhatia, Gaurav
Patterson, Nick
Sankararaman, Sriram
Price, Alkes L.
author_sort Bhatia, Gaurav
collection PubMed
description In a pair of seminal papers, Sewall Wright and Gustave Malécot introduced F(ST) as a measure of structure in natural populations. In the decades that followed, a number of papers provided differing definitions, estimation methods, and interpretations beyond Wright's. While this diversity in methods has enabled many studies in genetics, it has also introduced confusion regarding how to estimate F(ST) from available data. Considering this confusion, wide variation in published estimates of F(ST) for pairs of HapMap populations is a cause for concern. These estimates changed—in some cases more than twofold—when comparing estimates from genotyping arrays to those from sequence data. Indeed, changes in F(ST) from sequencing data might be expected due to population genetic factors affecting rare variants. While rare variants do influence the result, we show that this is largely through differences in estimation methods. Correcting for this yields estimates of F(ST) that are much more concordant between sequence and genotype data. These differences relate to three specific issues: (1) estimating F(ST) for a single SNP, (2) combining estimates of F(ST) across multiple SNPs, and (3) selecting the set of SNPs used in the computation. Changes in each of these aspects of estimation may result in F(ST) estimates that are highly divergent from one another. Here, we clarify these issues and propose solutions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3759727
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37597272014-03-01 Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants Bhatia, Gaurav Patterson, Nick Sankararaman, Sriram Price, Alkes L. Genome Res Method In a pair of seminal papers, Sewall Wright and Gustave Malécot introduced F(ST) as a measure of structure in natural populations. In the decades that followed, a number of papers provided differing definitions, estimation methods, and interpretations beyond Wright's. While this diversity in methods has enabled many studies in genetics, it has also introduced confusion regarding how to estimate F(ST) from available data. Considering this confusion, wide variation in published estimates of F(ST) for pairs of HapMap populations is a cause for concern. These estimates changed—in some cases more than twofold—when comparing estimates from genotyping arrays to those from sequence data. Indeed, changes in F(ST) from sequencing data might be expected due to population genetic factors affecting rare variants. While rare variants do influence the result, we show that this is largely through differences in estimation methods. Correcting for this yields estimates of F(ST) that are much more concordant between sequence and genotype data. These differences relate to three specific issues: (1) estimating F(ST) for a single SNP, (2) combining estimates of F(ST) across multiple SNPs, and (3) selecting the set of SNPs used in the computation. Changes in each of these aspects of estimation may result in F(ST) estimates that are highly divergent from one another. Here, we clarify these issues and propose solutions. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2013-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3759727/ /pubmed/23861382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.154831.113 Text en © 2013, Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first six months after the full-issue publication date (see http://genome.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After six months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
spellingShingle Method
Bhatia, Gaurav
Patterson, Nick
Sankararaman, Sriram
Price, Alkes L.
Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title_full Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title_fullStr Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title_full_unstemmed Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title_short Estimating and interpreting F(ST): The impact of rare variants
title_sort estimating and interpreting f(st): the impact of rare variants
topic Method
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23861382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.154831.113
work_keys_str_mv AT bhatiagaurav estimatingandinterpretingfsttheimpactofrarevariants
AT pattersonnick estimatingandinterpretingfsttheimpactofrarevariants
AT sankararamansriram estimatingandinterpretingfsttheimpactofrarevariants
AT pricealkesl estimatingandinterpretingfsttheimpactofrarevariants