Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16582427›Full record

ArticleGenetics2006

Estimating the genomewide rate of adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila.

John J Welch

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John J WelchCentre for the Study of Evolution, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK. johnwe0@sussex.ac.uk
University of Sussex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When polymorphism and divergence data are available for multiple loci, extended forms of the McDonald-Kreitman test can be used to estimate the average proportion of the amino acid divergence due to adaptive evolution--a statistic denoted alpha. But such tests are subject to many biases. Most serious is the possibility that high estimates of alpha reflect demographic changes rather than adaptive substitution. Testing for between-locus variation in alpha is one possible way of distinguishing between demography and selection. However, such tests have yielded contradictory results, and their efficacy is unclear. Estimates of alpha from the same model organisms have also varied widely. This study clarifies the reasons for these discrepancies, identifying several method-specific biases in widely used estimators and assessing the power of the methods. As part of this process, a new maximum-likelihood estimator is introduced. This estimator is applied to a newly compiled data set of 115 genes from Drosophila simulans, each with each orthologs from D. melanogaster and D. yakuba. In this way, it is estimated that alpha approximately 0.4+/-0.1, a value that does not vary substantially between different loci or over different periods of divergence. The implications of these results are discussed.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenome, InsectAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsDatabases, GeneticDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsGenes, InsectLikelihood FunctionsModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPolymorphism, GeneticSpecies SpecificityDrosophila Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16582427
PMCPMC1526489
OpenAlexW2058586944

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.