Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16320116›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2006

Synonymous SNPs provide evidence for selective constraint on human exonic splicing enhancers.

David B Carlini, Jordan E Genut

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Selection Shapes Synonymous Stop Codon Use in Mammals.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

David B CarliniDepartment of Biology, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA. carlini@american.edu
Jordan E Genut

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human SNP database was used to detect selection on 238 hexamers previously identified as exonic splicing enhancers (ESEs). We compared the distribution of the 238 putative ESEs in biallelic and triallelic SNPs within five different functional categories of the SNP database: synonymous, nonsynonymous, introns, UTRs, and nongenic SNPs. Since true ESEs do not function outside of exons, SNPs that disrupt ESE motifs were expected to be more common in nonexonic portions of the genome. Our results supported this expectation: ESEs were least prevalent within synonymous SNPs and most common in nongenic SNPs. There were approximately 11% fewer ESEs within synonymous biallelic SNPs than expected under no selective constraint. We also compared the frequency of neutral SNPs, those where neither allele was an ESE, with deleterious SNPs, those where one or more alleles was an ESE, across the five different functional classes of SNPs. In comparison with the other functional classes of SNPs, synonymous SNPs contained an excess of neutral variants (+1.64% and +6.04% for biallelic and triallelic SNPs, respectively) and a dearth of deleterious variants (-13.11% and -52.39% for biallelic and triallelic SNPs, respectively). The observed patterns were consistent with purifying selection on the 238 hexamers to maintain their function as ESEs. However, in contrast to previous work, we did not find evidence for selection to maintain ESE function at nonsynonymous SNPs because selection at the protein level probably obscured any difference at the level of ESE function.

Indexed as

Enhancer Elements, GeneticAlternative SplicingExonsHumansMutationPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

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.