The evolution of judgement bias in indirect reciprocity.

Indirect reciprocity is a form of reciprocity where help is given to individuals based on their reputation. In indirect reciprocity, bad acts (such as not helping) reduce an individual's reputation while good acts (such as helping) increase an individual's reputation. Studies of indirect reciprocity assume that good acts and bad acts are weighted equally when assessing the reputation of an individual. As different information can be processed in different ways, this is not likely to be the case, and it is possible that an individual could bias an actor's reputation by putting more weight to acts of defection (not helping) than acts of co-operation (helping) or vice versa. We term this difference 'judgement bias', and build an individual-based model of image scoring to investigate the conditions under which it may evolve. We find that, if the benefits of co-operation are small, judgement bias is weighted towards acts perceived to be bad; if the benefits are high, the reverse is true. Our result is consistent under both scoring and standing strategies, and we find that allowing judgement bias to evolve increases the level of co-operation in the population.

Fast Bias Field Correction for 9.4 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging

In this paper the problem of intensity inhomogeneity athigh magnetic field on magnetic resonance images isaddressed. Specifically, rat brain images at 9.4Tacquired with a surface coil are bias corrected. Wepropose a low- pass frequency model that takes intoaccount not only background-object contours but alsoother important contours inside the image. Twopre-processing filters are proposed: first, to create avolume of interest without contours, and second, toextrapolate the image values of such masked area to thewhole image. Results are assessed quantitatively andvisually in comparison to standard low pass filterapproach, and they show as expected better accuracy inenhancing image intensity.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:âeuro¢ To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.âeuro¢ To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

Need for informed consent in substance use studies--harm of bias?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the differences between those who gave informed consent to a study on substance use and those who did not, and to analyze whether differences changed with varying nonconsent rates. METHOD: Cross-sectional questionnaire data on demographics, alcohol, smoking, and cannabis use were obtained for 6,099 French- and 5,720 German-speaking 20-year-old Swiss men. Enrollment took place over 11 months for the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors (C-SURF). Consenters and nonconsenters were asked to complete a short questionnaire. Data for nearly the entire population were available because 94% responded. Weekly differences in consent rates were analyzed. Regressions examined the associations of substance use with consent giving and consent rates and the interaction between the two. RESULTS: Nonconsenters had higher substance use patterns, although they were more often alcohol abstainers; differences were small and not always significant and did not decrease as consent rates increased. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use currently is a minor sensitive topic among young men, resulting in small differences between nonconsenters and consenters. As consent rates increase, additional individuals are similar to those observed at lower consent rates. Estimates of analytical studies looking at associations of substance use with other variables will not differ at reasonable consent rates of 50%-80%. Descriptive prevalence studies may be biased, but only at very low rates of consent.

Correcting for the bias due to expression specificity improves the estimation of constrained evolution of expression between mouse and human.

MOTIVATION: Comparative analyses of gene expression data from different species have become an important component of the study of molecular evolution. Thus methods are needed to estimate evolutionary distances between expression profiles, as well as a neutral reference to estimate selective pressure. Divergence between expression profiles of homologous genes is often calculated with Pearson's or Euclidean distance. Neutral divergence is usually inferred from randomized data. Despite being widely used, neither of these two steps has been well studied. Here, we analyze these methods formally and on real data, highlight their limitations and propose improvements. RESULTS: It has been demonstrated that Pearson's distance, in contrast to Euclidean distance, leads to underestimation of the expression similarity between homologous genes with a conserved uniform pattern of expression. Here, we first extend this study to genes with conserved, but specific pattern of expression. Surprisingly, we find that both Pearson's and Euclidean distances used as a measure of expression similarity between genes depend on the expression specificity of those genes. We also show that the Euclidean distance depends strongly on data normalization. Next, we show that the randomization procedure that is widely used to estimate the rate of neutral evolution is biased when broadly expressed genes are abundant in the data. To overcome this problem, we propose a novel randomization procedure that is unbiased with respect to expression profiles present in the datasets. Applying our method to the mouse and human gene expression data suggests significant gene expression conservation between these species. CONTACT: marc.robinson-rechavi@unil.ch; sven.bergmann@unil.ch SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Mapping Bias Overestimates Reference Allele Frequencies at the HLA Genes in the 1000 Genomes Project Phase I Data.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have become the standard for data generation in studies of population genomics, as the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G). However, these techniques are known to be problematic when applied to highly polymorphic genomic regions, such as the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. Because accurate genotype calls and allele frequency estimations are crucial to population genomics analyses, it is important to assess the reliability of NGS data. Here, we evaluate the reliability of genotype calls and allele frequency estimates of the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported by 1000G (phase I) at five HLA genes (HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1). We take advantage of the availability of HLA Sanger sequencing of 930 of the 1092 1000G samples and use this as a gold standard to benchmark the 1000G data. We document that 18.6% of SNP genotype calls in HLA genes are incorrect and that allele frequencies are estimated with an error greater than ±0.1 at approximately 25% of the SNPs in HLA genes. We found a bias toward overestimation of reference allele frequency for the 1000G data, indicating mapping bias is an important cause of error in frequency estimation in this dataset. We provide a list of sites that have poor allele frequency estimates and discuss the outcomes of including those sites in different kinds of analyses. Because the HLA region is the most polymorphic in the human genome, our results provide insights into the challenges of using of NGS data at other genomic regions of high diversity.

Sex differences in brain plasticity: a new hypothesis for sex ratio bias in autism.

Several observations support the hypothesis that differences in synaptic and regional cerebral plasticity between the sexes account for the high ratio of males to females in autism. First, males are more susceptible than females to perturbations in genes involved in synaptic plasticity. Second, sex-related differences in non-autistic brain structure and function are observed in highly variable regions, namely, the heteromodal associative cortices, and overlap with structural particularities and enhanced activity of perceptual associative regions in autistic individuals. Finally, functional cortical reallocations following brain lesions in non-autistic adults (for example, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis) are sex-dependent. Interactions between genetic sex and hormones may therefore result in higher synaptic and consecutively regional plasticity in perceptual brain areas in males than in females. The onset of autism may largely involve mutations altering synaptic plasticity that create a plastic reaction affecting the most variable and sexually dimorphic brain regions. The sex ratio bias in autism may arise because males have a lower threshold than females for the development of this plastic reaction following a genetic or environmental event.

Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards.

The adult sex ratio (ASR) is a key parameter of the demography of human and other animal populations, yet the causes of variation in ASR, how individuals respond to this variation, and how their response feeds back into population dynamics remain poorly understood. A prevalent hypothesis is that ASR is regulated by intrasexual competition, which would cause more mortality or emigration in the sex of increasing frequency. Our experimental manipulation of populations of the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) shows the opposite effect. Male mortality and emigration are not higher under male-biased ASR. Rather, an excess of adult males begets aggression toward adult females, whose survival and fecundity drop, along with their emigration rate. The ensuing prediction that adult male skew should be amplified and total population size should decline is supported by long-term data. Numerical projections show that this amplifying effect causes a major risk of population extinction. In general, such an "evolutionary trap" toward extinction threatens populations in which there is a substantial mating cost for females, and environmental changes or management practices skew the ASR toward males.

Phylogenomics Controlling for Base Compositional Bias Reveals a Single Origin of Eusociality in Corbiculate Bees.

As increasingly large molecular data sets are collected for phylogenomics, the conflicting phylogenetic signal among gene trees poses challenges to resolve some difficult nodes of the Tree of Life. Among these nodes, the phylogenetic position of the honey bees (Apini) within the corbiculate bee group remains controversial, despite its considerable importance for understanding the emergence and maintenance of eusociality. Here, we show that this controversy stems in part from pervasive phylogenetic conflicts among GC-rich gene trees. GC-rich genes typically have a high nucleotidic heterogeneity among species, which can induce topological conflicts among gene trees. When retaining only the most GC-homogeneous genes or using a nonhomogeneous model of sequence evolution, our analyses reveal a monophyletic group of the three lineages with a eusocial lifestyle (honey bees, bumble bees, and stingless bees). These phylogenetic relationships strongly suggest a single origin of eusociality in the corbiculate bees, with no reversal to solitary living in this group. To accurately reconstruct other important evolutionary steps across the Tree of Life, we suggest removing GC-rich and GC-heterogeneous genes from large phylogenomic data sets. Interpreted as a consequence of genome-wide variations in recombination rates, this GC effect can affect all taxa featuring GC-biased gene conversion, which is common in eukaryotes.