Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10978290›Full record

ArticleGenetics2000

A genome-wide departure from the standard neutral model in natural populations of Drosophila.

P Andolfatto, M Przeworski

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deep Learning for Population Genetic Inference.PLoS computational biology · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A selective sweep across species boundaries in Drosophila.Molecular biology and evolution · 2013
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

P AndolfattoInstitute for Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom.
M Przeworski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analyze nucleotide polymorphism data for a large number of loci in areas of normal to high recombination in Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans (24 and 16 loci, respectively). We find a genome-wide, systematic departure from the neutral expectation for a panmictic population at equilibrium in natural populations of both species. The distribution of sequence-based estimates of 2Nc across loci is inconsistent with the assumptions of the standard neutral theory, given the observed levels of nucleotide diversity and accepted values for recombination and mutation rates. Under these assumptions, most estimates of 2Nc are severalfold too low; in other words, both species exhibit greater intralocus linkage disequilibrium than expected. Variation in recombination or mutation rates is not sufficient to account for the excess of linkage disequilibrium. While an equilibrium island model does not seem to account for the data, more complicated forms of population structure may. A proper test of alternative demographic models will require loci to be sampled in a more consistent fashion.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticAnimalsDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterFemaleGenetics, PopulationLinkage DisequilibriumMaleMutationPolymorphism, GeneticRecombination, GeneticSelection, GeneticSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID10978290
PMCPMC1461228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.