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. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  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 Arizona, United States
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 20
  • Views 3,842
  • 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

    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:" 0000-0002-6197-3872

  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

  • 3,842
    Page views
  • 440
    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

    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.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health

    Characterizing human mobility patterns in rural settings of sub-Saharan Africa

    Hannah R Meredith et al.
    Research Article

    Human mobility is a core component of human behavior and its quantification is critical for understanding its impact on infectious disease transmission, traffic forecasting, access to resources and care, intervention strategies, and migratory flows. When mobility data are limited, spatial interaction models have been widely used to estimate human travel, but have not been extensively validated in low- and middle-income settings. Geographic, sociodemographic, and infrastructure differences may impact the ability for models to capture these patterns, particularly in rural settings. Here, we analyzed mobility patterns inferred from mobile phone data in four Sub-Saharan African countries to investigate the ability for variants on gravity and radiation models to estimate travel. Adjusting the gravity model such that parameters were fit to different trip types, including travel between more or less populated areas and/or different regions, improved model fit in all four countries. This suggests that alternative models may be more useful in these settings and better able to capture the range of mobility patterns observed.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    PARROT is a flexible recurrent neural network framework for analysis of large protein datasets

    Daniel Griffith, Alex S Holehouse
    Tools and Resources

    The rise of high-throughput experiments has transformed how scientists approach biological questions. The ubiquity of large-scale assays that can test thousands of samples in a day has necessitated the development of new computational approaches to interpret this data. Among these tools, machine learning approaches are increasingly being utilized due to their ability to infer complex nonlinear patterns from high-dimensional data. Despite their effectiveness, machine learning (and in particular deep learning) approaches are not always accessible or easy to implement for those with limited computational expertise. Here we present PARROT, a general framework for training and applying deep learning-based predictors on large protein datasets. Using an internal recurrent neural network architecture, PARROT is capable of tackling both classification and regression tasks while only requiring raw protein sequences as input. We showcase the potential uses of PARROT on three diverse machine learning tasks: predicting phosphorylation sites, predicting transcriptional activation function of peptides generated by high-throughput reporter assays, and predicting the fibrillization propensity of amyloid beta with data generated by deep mutational scanning. Through these examples, we demonstrate that PARROT is easy to use, performs comparably to state-of-the-art computational tools, and is applicable for a wide array of biological problems.