Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Insight into Gibberellin- and Jasmonate-Mediated Stamen Development
Previous Article in Journal
Overexpression of OsPT8 Increases Auxin Content and Enhances Tolerance to High-Temperature Stress in Nicotiana tabacum
 
 
Correction to Genes 2019, 10(4), 308.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Berner, D. Allele Frequency Difference AFD—An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation. Genes 2019, 10, 308

Department of Environmental Sciences, Zoology, University of Basel, Vesalgasse 1, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland
Genes 2019, 10(10), 810; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100810
Submission received: 26 September 2019 / Accepted: 1 October 2019 / Published: 14 October 2019
This note is to correct an error in my paper, concerning the Shannon differentiation metric (DShannon) (Reference [43] in the paper). The paper states that DShannon is undefined mathematically whenever one or both populations are monomorphic, that is, fixed for a single allele. Accordingly, the DShannon curve in Figure 1a, showing population differentiation in relation to allele counts for the case in which the pooled minor allele frequency (MAF) is maximal, did not extend across the full range of allele counts; the rightmost data point reflecting complete population differentiation was missing. Moreover, DShannon was completely missing in Figure 1b visualizing the continuum of allele frequency differentiation when the MAF is minimal (one population monomorphic across the entire allele count range).
The reason why DShannon appeared undefined in these situations is that in monomorphic populations, the piln(pi) summand for the missing allele in the Shannon entropy formula (page 4 in the Supplementary Material to Reference [43]) will contain the logarithm of zero, which is negatively infinite. However, I overlooked that whenever the frequency of one allele is zero, the corresponding summand should be substituted by zero. Doing so produces a defined Shannon entropy value needed for the subsequent calculation of DShannon according to the instructions on page 5 in the Supplementary Material to Reference [43]. Following this convention, DShannon is indeed always defined and ranging between zero and one. The figure below is a copy of Figure 1 in the paper, but with DShannon calculated by following the above convention.
I thank William Sherwin, Anne Chao, Lou Jost, and Peter Smouse for bringing this issue to my attention.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.
Corrected Figure 1. Population differentiation expressed by different metrics, including re-calculated Shannon differentiation (DShannon). GST and Theta were calculated according to the formulas (8) and (6) provided in Reference [28] in the paper. DEST was calculated using formula (13) in Reference [14]. All graphing conventions follow Figure 1 in the paper.
Corrected Figure 1. Population differentiation expressed by different metrics, including re-calculated Shannon differentiation (DShannon). GST and Theta were calculated according to the formulas (8) and (6) provided in Reference [28] in the paper. DEST was calculated using formula (13) in Reference [14]. All graphing conventions follow Figure 1 in the paper.
Genes 10 00810 g001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Berner, D. Correction: Berner, D. Allele Frequency Difference AFD—An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation. Genes 2019, 10, 308. Genes 2019, 10, 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100810

AMA Style

Berner D. Correction: Berner, D. Allele Frequency Difference AFD—An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation. Genes 2019, 10, 308. Genes. 2019; 10(10):810. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100810

Chicago/Turabian Style

Berner, Daniel. 2019. "Correction: Berner, D. Allele Frequency Difference AFD—An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation. Genes 2019, 10, 308" Genes 10, no. 10: 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100810

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop