1. Computational and Systems Biology
  2. Evolutionary Biology
Download icon

A community-maintained standard library of population genetic models

  1. Jeffrey R Adrion
  2. Christopher B Cole
  3. Noah Dukler
  4. Jared G Galloway
  5. Ariella L Gladstein
  6. Graham Gower
  7. Christopher C Kyriazis
  8. Aaron P Ragsdale
  9. Georgia Tsambos
  10. Franz Baumdicker
  11. Jedidiah Carlson
  12. Reed A Cartwright
  13. Arun Durvasula
  14. Ilan Gronau
  15. Bernard Y Kim
  16. Patrick McKenzie
  17. Philipp W Messer
  18. Ekaterina Noskova
  19. Diego Ortega Del Vecchyo
  20. Fernando Racimo
  21. Travis J Struck
  22. Simon Gravel
  23. Ryan N Gutenkunst
  24. Kirk E Lohmueller
  25. Peter L Ralph
  26. Daniel R Schrider
  27. Adam Siepel
  28. Jerome Kelleher  Is a corresponding author
  29. Andrew D Kern  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oregon, United States
  2. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  3. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, United States
  4. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
  5. The University of Adelaide, Australia
  6. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  7. McGill University, Canada
  8. University of Melbourne, Australia
  9. University of Freiburg, Germany
  10. University of Washington, United States
  11. Arizona State University, United States
  12. IDC Herzliya, Israel
  13. Stanford University, United States
  14. Columbia University, United States
  15. Cornell University, United States
  16. ITMO University, Russian Federation
  17. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
  18. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  19. University of Arizona, United States
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 20
  • Views 3,861
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e54967 doi: 10.7554/eLife.54967

Abstract

The explosion in population genomic data demands ever more complex modes of analysis, and increasingly these analyses depend on sophisticated simulations. Re-cent advances in population genetic simulation have made it possible to simulate large and complex models, but specifying such models for a particular simulation engine remains a difficult and error-prone task. Computational genetics researchers currently re-implement simulation models independently, leading to inconsistency and duplication of effort. This situation presents a major barrier to empirical researchers seeking to use simulations for power analyses of upcoming studies or sanity checks on existing genomic data. Population genetics, as a field, also lacks standard benchmarks by which new tools for inference might be measured. Here we describe a new resource, stdpopsim, that attempts to rectify this situation. Stdpopsim is a community-driven open source project, which provides easy access to a growing catalog of published simulation models from a range of organisms and supports multiple simulation engine backends. This resource is available as a well-documented python library with a simple command-line interface. We share some examples demonstrating how stdpopsim can be used to systematically compare demographic inference methods, and we encourage a broader community of developers to contribute to this growing resource.

Data availability

All resources are available from https://github.com/popsim-consortium/stdpopsim

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jeffrey R Adrion

    Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  2. Christopher B Cole

    Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6733-633X

  3. Noah Dukler

    Simons Center for Quantitative Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8739-8052

  4. Jared G Galloway

    Department of Biology and Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  5. Ariella L Gladstein

    Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Graham Gower

    Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6197-3872

  7. Christopher C Kyriazis

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. Aaron P Ragsdale

    Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0715-3432

  9. Georgia Tsambos

    Melbourne Integrative Genomics, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7001-2275

  10. Franz Baumdicker

    Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  11. Jedidiah Carlson

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  12. Reed A Cartwright

    The Biodesign Institute and The School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  13. Arun Durvasula

    Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0631-3238

  14. Ilan Gronau

    IDC Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  15. Bernard Y Kim

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  16. Patrick McKenzie

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  17. Philipp W Messer

    Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    Philipp W Messer, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8453-9377

  18. Ekaterina Noskova

    Computer Technologies Laboratory, ITMO University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1168-0497

  19. Diego Ortega Del Vecchyo

    International Laboratory for Human Genome Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Juriquilla, Mexico
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  20. Fernando Racimo

    Lundbeck GeoGenetics Centre, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5025-2607

  21. Travis J Struck

    Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  22. Simon Gravel

    Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  23. Ryan N Gutenkunst

    Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8659-0579

  24. Kirk E Lohmueller

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3874-369X

  25. Peter L Ralph

    Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  26. Daniel R Schrider

    Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5249-4151

  27. Adam Siepel

    Simons Center for Quantitative Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  28. Jerome Kelleher

    Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jerome.kelleher@bdi.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  29. Andrew D Kern

    Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    For correspondence
    adkern@uoregon.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4381-4680

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119856)

  • Christopher C Kyriazis
  • Kirk E Lohmueller

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM117241)

  • Jeffrey R Adrion
  • Andrew D Kern

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM127348)

  • Travis J Struck
  • Ryan N Gutenkunst

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R00HG008696)

  • Ariella L Gladstein
  • Daniel R Schrider

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM127070)

  • Noah Dukler
  • Adam Siepel

National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG010346)

  • Noah Dukler
  • Adam Siepel

Villum Fonden (00025300)

  • Graham Gower
  • Fernando Racimo

UC MEXUS-CONACYT

  • Diego Ortega Del Vecchyo

Robertson Foundation

  • Jerome Kelleher

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Graham Coop, University of California, Davis, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: January 7, 2020
  2. Accepted: June 15, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 25, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: August 19, 2020 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2020, Adrion et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,861
    Page views
  • 441
    Downloads
  • 20
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience

    Phase response analyses support a relaxation oscillator model of locomotor rhythm generation in Caenorhabditis elegans

    Hongfei Ji et al.
    Research Article

    Neural circuits coordinate with muscles and sensory feedback to generate motor behaviors appropriate to an animal’s environment. In C. elegans, the mechanisms by which the motor circuit generates undulations and modulates them based on the environment are largely unclear. We quantitatively analyzed C. elegans locomotion during free movement and during transient optogenetic muscle inhibition. Undulatory movements were highly asymmetrical with respect to the duration of bending and unbending during each cycle. Phase response curves induced by brief optogenetic inhibition of head muscles showed gradual increases and rapid decreases as a function of phase at which the perturbation was applied. A relaxation oscillator model based on proprioceptive thresholds that switch the active muscle moment was developed and is shown to quantitatively agree with data from free movement, phase responses, and previous results for gait adaptation to mechanical loadings. Our results suggest a neuromuscular mechanism underlying C. elegans motor pattern generation within a compact circuit.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    Environmental fluctuations reshape an unexpected diversity-disturbance relationship in a microbial community

    Christopher P Mancuso et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Environmental disturbances have long been theorized to play a significant role in shaping the diversity and composition of ecosystems. However, an inability to specify the characteristics of a disturbance experimentally has produced an inconsistent picture of diversity-disturbance relationships (DDRs). Here, using a high-throughput programmable culture system, we subjected a soil-derived bacterial community to dilution disturbance profiles with different intensities (mean dilution rates), applied either constantly or with fluctuations of different frequencies. We observed an unexpected U-shaped relationship between community diversity and disturbance intensity in the absence of fluctuations. Adding fluctuations increased community diversity and erased the U-shape. All our results are well-captured by a Monod consumer resource model, which also explains how U-shaped DDRs emerge via a novel ‘niche flip’ mechanism. Broadly, our combined experimental and modeling framework demonstrates how distinct features of an environmental disturbance can interact in complex ways to govern ecosystem assembly and offers strategies for reshaping the composition of microbiomes.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding

    Michael S Lauer, Deepshikha Roychowdhury
    Research Article Updated

    Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998–2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.