Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15008412›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2003

Bayesian analysis suggests that most amino acid replacements in Drosophila are driven by positive selection.

Stanley A Sawyer, Rob J Kulathinal, Carlos D Bustamante, Daniel L Hartl

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Population Genomics on the Fly: Recent Advances in Drosophila.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020
    Review
  10. The Impact of Protein Architecture on Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Neutral Theory in Light of Natural Selection.Molecular biology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Determining the factors driving selective effects of new nonsynonymous mutations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

18 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stanley A SawyerDepartment of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Rob J Kulathinal
Carlos D Bustamante
Daniel L Hartl
Harvard University · USCornell University · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Evolution of Genome IncompatibilitiesR01GM065169 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI HARTL, DANIEL L · 2003 to 2011
$2.5M
GENETICS OF A NEWLY EVOLVED TESTES SPECIFIC GENE SDICR01GM060035 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI HARTL, DANIEL L. · 1999 to 2003
$955k
NIGMS NIH HHS GM60035NIGMS NIH HHS GM65169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the principal goals of population genetics is to understand the processes by which genetic variation within species (polymorphism) becomes converted into genetic differences between species (divergence). In this transformation, selective neutrality, near neutrality, and positive selection may each play a role, differing from one gene to the next. Synonymous nucleotide sites are often used as a uniform standard of comparison across genes on the grounds that synonymous sites are subject to relatively weak selective constraints and so may, to a first approximation, be regarded as neutral. Synonymous sites are also interdigitated with nonsynonymous sites and so are affected equally by genomic context and demographic factors. Hence a comparison of levels of polymorphism and divergence between synonymous sites and amino acid replacement sites in a gene is potentially informative about the magnitude of selective forces associated with amino acid replacements. We have analyzed 56 genes in which polymorphism data from D. simulans are compared with divergence from a reference strain of D. melanogaster. The framework of the analysis is Bayesian and assumes that the distribution of selective effects (Malthusian fitnesses) is Gaussian with a mean that differs for each gene. In such a model, the average scaled selection intensity (gamma = N(e)s) of amino acid replacements eligible to become polymorphic or fixed is -7.31, and the standard deviation of selective effects within each locus is 6.79 (assuming homoscedasticity across loci). For newly arising mutations of this type that occur in autosomal or X-linked genes, the average proportion of beneficial mutations is 19.7%. Among the amino acid polymorphisms in the sample, the expected average proportion of beneficial mutations is 47.7%, and among amino acid replacements that become fixed the average proportion of beneficial mutations is 94.3%. The average scaled selection intensity of fixed mutations is +5.1. The presence of positive selection is pervasive with the single exception of kl-5, a Y-linked fertility gene. We find no evidence that a significant fraction of fixed amino acid replacements is neutral or nearly neutral or that positive selection drives amino acid replacements at only a subset of the loci. These results are model dependent and we discuss possible modifications of the model that might allow more neutral and nearly neutral amino acid replacements to be fixed.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremPolymorphism, GeneticSelection, GeneticAmino Acid SubstitutionAnimalsDrosophilaModels, GeneticMutationX ChromosomeY Chromosome

Identifiers

PMID15008412
OpenAlexW1978781447

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.