Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17040129›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2006

Inferring the demographic history and rate of adaptive substitution in Drosophila.

Haipeng Li, Wolfgang Stephan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 201 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
201citing 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

201 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Global genomic diversity of the selfing nematodebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Neural posterior estimation for population genetics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Expression of De Novo Open Reading Frames in Natural Populations of Drosophila melanogaster.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

141 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

2 authors.

Haipeng LiSection of Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biology II, University of Munich, Planegg-Martinsried, Germany. li@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de
Wolfgang Stephan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important goal of population genetics is to determine the forces that have shaped the pattern of genetic variation in natural populations. We developed a maximum likelihood method that allows us to infer demographic changes and detect recent positive selection (selective sweeps) in populations of varying size from DNA polymorphism data. Applying this approach to single nucleotide polymorphism data at more than 250 noncoding loci on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster from an (ancestral) African population and a (derived) European, we found that the African population expanded about 60,000 y ago and that the European population split off from the African lineage about 15,800 y ago, thereby suffering a severe population size bottleneck. We estimated that about 160 beneficial mutations (with selection coefficients s between 0.05% and 0.5%) were fixed in the euchromatic portion of the X in the African population since population size expansion, and about 60 mutations (with s around 0.5%) in the diverging European lineage.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetics, PopulationSelection, GeneticAdaptation, PhysiologicalAfricaAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterEuropeModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence DataMutagenesis

Identifiers

PMID17040129
PMCPMC1599771

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.