Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16751672›Full record

ArticleGenetics2006

A Bayesian heterogeneous analysis of variance approach to inferring recent selective sweeps.

John M Marshall, Robert E Weiss

Abstract read
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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

John M MarshallDepartment of Biomathematics, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1766, USA. johnmm@ucla.edu
Robert E Weiss

Funding

Niono Irrigation Project and Malaria: A Computer ModelR01AI051633 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TAYLOR, CHARLES E · 2002 to 2006
$1.8M
Population genomics of Mosquito An. gambiae in AfricaR01AI040308 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI LANZARO, GREGORY C. · 1996 to 2006
$1.5M
NIAID NIH HHS 1R01AI51633NIAID NIH HHS 7R01AI040308-06NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI040308NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI051633
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distribution of microsatellite allele sizes in populations aids in understanding the genetic diversity of species and the evolutionary history of recent selective sweeps. We propose a heterogeneous Bayesian analysis of variance model for inferring loci involved in recent selective sweeps by analyzing the distribution of allele sizes at multiple loci in multiple populations. Our model is shown to be consistent with a multilocus test statistic, ln RV, proposed for identifying microsatellite loci involved in recent selective sweeps. Our methodology differs in that it accepts original allele size data rather than summary statistics and allows the incorporation of prior knowledge about allele frequencies using a hierarchical prior distribution consisting of log normal and gamma probability distributions. Interesting features of the model are its ability to simultaneously analyze allele size data for any number of populations and to cope with the presence of any number of selected loci. The utility of the method is illustrated by application to two sets of microsatellite allele size data for a group of West African Anopheles gambiae populations. The results are consistent with the suppressed-recombination model of speciation, and additional candidate loci on chromosomes 2 (079 and 175) and 3 (088) are discovered that escaped former analysis.

Indexed as

AllelesModels, GeneticSelection, GeneticAnimalsAnophelesChromosomesEvolution, MolecularGenetics, PopulationGenome, InsectMicrosatellite RepeatsQuantitative Trait LociRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID16751672
PMCPMC1569732

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.