Common misconceptions in molecular ecology: echoes of the modern synthesis

The field of molecular ecology has burgeoned into a large discipline spurred on by technical innovations that facilitate the rapid acquisition of large amounts of genotypic data, by the continuing development of theory to interpret results, and by the availability of computer programs to analyse dat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Molecular ecology 2012-09, Vol.21 (17), p.4171-4189
Main Authors: KARL, STEPHEN A., TOONEN, R. J., GRANT, W. S., BOWEN, B. W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Bayes Theorem
Cell Nucleus - genetics
Computational Biology
data interpretation
DNA, Mitochondrial - genetics
Ecology
Ecology - methods
Evolution, Molecular
Genetic diversity
Genetic Markers
Genetics, Population - methods
Genotype & phenotype
manuscript review
Microsatellite Repeats
Mitochondrial DNA
Models, Genetic
Molecular Biology - methods
Population genetics
publishing research results
trends in molecular ecology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The field of molecular ecology has burgeoned into a large discipline spurred on by technical innovations that facilitate the rapid acquisition of large amounts of genotypic data, by the continuing development of theory to interpret results, and by the availability of computer programs to analyse data sets. As the discipline grows, however, misconceptions have become enshrined in the literature and are perpetuated by routine citations to other articles in molecular ecology. These misconceptions hamper a better understanding of the processes that influence genetic variation in natural populations and sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions. Here, we consider eight misconceptions commonly appearing in the literature: (i) some molecular markers are inherently better than other markers; (ii) mtDNA produces higher FST values than nDNA; (iii) estimated population coalescences are real; (iv) more data are always better; (v) one needs to do a Bayesian analysis; (vi) selective sweeps influence mtDNA data; (vii) equilibrium conditions are critical for estimating population parameters; and (viii) having better technology makes us smarter than our predecessors. This is clearly not an exhaustive list and many others can be added. It is, however, sufficient to illustrate why we all need to be more critical of our own understanding of molecular ecology and to be suspicious of self‐evident truths. See also the Perspective by Vrijenhoek and Waples
ISSN:0962-1083
1365-294X
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05576.x