Assessing the impact of recombination on the estimation of isolation-with-migration models using genomic data: a simulation study

Recombination events complicate the evolutionary history of populations and species and have a significant impact on the inference of isolation-with-migration (IM) models. However, several existing methods have been developed, assuming no recombination within a locus and free recombination between loci. In this study, we investigated the effect of recombination on the estimation of IM models using genomic data. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the consistency of the parameter estimators with up to 1,000 loci and analyze true gene trees to examine the sources of errors in estimating the IM model parameters. The results showed that the presence of recombination led to biased estimates of the IM model parameters, with population sizes being more overestimated and migration rates being more underestimated as the number of loci increased. The magnitude of the biases tended to increase with the recombination rates when using 100 or more loci. On the other hand, the estimation of splitting times remained consistent as the number of loci increased. In the absence of recombination, the estimators of the IM model parameters remained consistent.

Recent advances in Bayesian inference of isolation-with-migration models

Isolation-with-migration (IM) models have become popular for explaining population divergence in the presence of migrations. Bayesian methods are commonly used to estimate IM models, but they are limited to small data analysis or simple model inference. Recently three methods, IMa3, MIST, and AIM, resolved these limitations. Here, we describe the major problems addressed by these three software and compare differences among their inference methods, despite their use of the same standard likelihood function.

Recent advances in Bayesian inference of isolation-with-migration models

Isolation-with-migration (IM) models have become popular for explaining population divergence in the presence of migrations. Bayesian methods are commonly used to estimate IM models, but they are limited to small data analysis or simple model inference. Recently three methods, IMa3, MIST, and AIM, resolved these limitations. Here, we describe the major problems addressed by these three software and compare differences among their inference methods, despite their use of the same standard likelihood function.