Raw Data Library
About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User Guide
Green Science
​
​
EN
Kurumsal BaşvuruSign inGet started
​
​

About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User GuideGreen Science

Language

Kurumsal Başvuru

Sign inGet started
RDL logo

Verified research datasets. Instant access. Built for collaboration.

Navigation

About

Aims and Scope

Advisory Board Members

More

Who We Are?

Contact

Add Raw Data

User Guide

Legal

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Support

Got an issue? Email us directly.

Email: info@rawdatalibrary.netOpen Mail App
​
​

© 2026 Raw Data Library. All rights reserved.
PrivacyTermsContact
  1. Raw Data Library
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Comparing three different methods to detect selective loci using dominant markers

Verified authors • Institutional access • DOI aware
50,000+ researchers120,000+ datasets90% satisfaction
Article
en
2010

Comparing three different methods to detect selective loci using dominant markers

0 Datasets

0 Files

en
2010
Vol 23 (10)
Vol. 23
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02093.x

Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.

Create free accountHow it works

Frequently asked questions

Is access really free for academics and students?

Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.

How is my data protected?

Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.

Can I request additional materials?

Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.

Advance your research today

Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.

Get free academic accessLearn more
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaboration
Access Research Data

Join our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.

Get Free Access
Institutional SSO
Secure
This PDF is not available in different languages.
No localized PDFs are currently available.
Armando Caballero
Armando Caballero

Universidade de Vigo

Verified
Andrés Pérez‐Figueroa
María Jesús García-Pereira
María Saura
+2 more

Abstract

Abstract We carried out a simulation study to compare the efficiency of three alternative programs ( dfdist , detseld and bayescan ) to detect loci under directional selection from genome‐wide scans using dominant markers. We also evaluated the efficiency of correcting for multiple testing those methods that use a classical probability approach. Under a wide range of scenarios, we conclude that bayescan appears to be more efficient than the other methods, detecting a usually high percentage of true selective loci as well as less than 1% of outliers (false positives) under a fully neutral model. In addition, the percentage of outliers detected by this software is always correlated with the true percentage of selective loci in the genome. Our results show, nevertheless, that false positives are common even with a combination of methods and multitest correction, suggesting that conclusions obtained from this approach should be taken with extreme caution.

How to cite this publication

Andrés Pérez‐Figueroa, María Jesús García-Pereira, María Saura, Emilio Rolán‐Alvarez, Armando Caballero (2010). Comparing three different methods to detect selective loci using dominant markers. , 23(10), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02093.x.

Related publications

Why join Raw Data Library?

Quality

Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.

Control

Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.

Free for Academia

Students and faculty get instant access after verification.

Publication Details

Type

Article

Year

2010

Authors

5

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02093.x

Join Research Community

Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.

Get Free Access