Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15911584›Full record

ArticleGenetics2005

Distinguishing between selective sweeps and demography using DNA polymorphism data.

Jeffrey D Jensen, Yuseob Kim, Vanessa Bauer DuMont, Charles F Aquadro, Carlos D Bustamante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 153 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
153citing 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

153 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Malaria control and the unexpected spread of diagnostic-resistantbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Digital Image Processing to Detect Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

93 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

5 authors.

Jeffrey D JensenDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA.
Yuseob Kim
Vanessa Bauer DuMont
Charles F Aquadro
Carlos D Bustamante

Funding

MOLECULAR POPULATION GENETICS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTERR01GM036431 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA · PI AQUADRO, CHARLES F · 1986 to 2010
$2.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM36431NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM036431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2002 Kim and Stephan proposed a promising composite-likelihood method for localizing and estimating the fitness advantage of a recently fixed beneficial mutation. Here, we demonstrate that their composite-likelihood-ratio (CLR) test comparing selective and neutral hypotheses is not robust to undetected population structure or a recent bottleneck, with some parameter combinations resulting in a false positive rate of nearly 90%. We also propose a goodness-of-fit test for discriminating rejections due to directional selection (true positive) from those due to population and demographic forces (false positives) and demonstrate that the new method has high sensitivity to differentiate the two classes of rejections.

Indexed as

DemographyGenetics, PopulationModels, GeneticPolymorphism, GeneticSelection, GeneticComputer SimulationLikelihood FunctionsMutationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID15911584
PMCPMC1451184

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.