You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description: unicellular isogamous alga with a haploid 110 Mb genome - used in studies of cell motility, but also more recently as a model for evolutionary genetics (especially in light of its facultatively sexual life cycle)
Note: Maybe you don't know a lot of the things below - but, that's OK!
The criteria are that (a) the choice is reasonable, and (b) the rationale is clear.
What we want is a "reasonable estimate" (or, "best guess") - if you were to use a number in a paper,
what would you use and how would you justify it to your collaborators?
For instance, for "generation time", best would be to cite a paper that actually measures
or estimates generation time. But most species don't have this;
next best would be to give a number used in the literature, and provide a citation that used it
(and hopefully the publication gives a justification also).
Lacking this, you might provide a number from a related species (and a citation for this).
Here is the checklist of things that we need to add a species to the catalogue.
Each thing should be provided, with a justification (maybe short) and a citation.
Demographic information:
generation time in years
~2.4 mitotic doublings per day -> 365 * 2.4 = 876 doublings per year (Vitova et al 2011, link)
1/876 = 0.0011 years/generation
I hope I did this right - please correct me if I'm wrong!
This is = rho / 2Ne, and is two orders of magnitude lower than lab estimates (9.15 cM/Mb)! But if simulating wild populations of C. reinhardtii, in the absence of a means of modifying the rate of sex in natural populations, this value already takes the infrequency of sex into account
If a means of modifying the rate of sex is implemented into stdpopsim, then the 9.15 cM/Mb value is appropriate to use when simulating natural populations, provided the rate of sex is set to 1/840 (see Hasan and Ness 2020)
But it is important to note that this is NOT the expected recombination rate in a single cross of C. reinhardtii, and is in fact substantially lower!
Description: unicellular isogamous alga with a haploid 110 Mb genome - used in studies of cell motility, but also more recently as a model for evolutionary genetics (especially in light of its facultatively sexual life cycle)
Note: Maybe you don't know a lot of the things below - but, that's OK!
The criteria are that (a) the choice is reasonable, and (b) the rationale is clear.
What we want is a "reasonable estimate" (or, "best guess") - if you were to use a number in a paper,
what would you use and how would you justify it to your collaborators?
For instance, for "generation time", best would be to cite a paper that actually measures
or estimates generation time. But most species don't have this;
next best would be to give a number used in the literature, and provide a citation that used it
(and hopefully the publication gives a justification also).
Lacking this, you might provide a number from a related species (and a citation for this).
Here is the checklist of things that we need to add a species to the catalogue.
Each thing should be provided, with a justification (maybe short) and a citation.
Demographic information:
Chromosome structure:
Note: The assembly should be chromosome-level, i.e., not composed of thousands of scaffolds.
Recombination rates:
stdpopsim
, then the 9.15 cM/Mb value is appropriate to use when simulating natural populations, provided the rate of sex is set to 1/840 (see Hasan and Ness 2020)Mutation rate:
Demographic model:
Other information:
These are things we don't currently use, but will want to use in the future:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: