ArticleGenetica2008
A new test for detecting ongoing selection.
Article in Genetica, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much effort has been made to search for signatures of past natural selection in DNA sequences. However, currently acting selection is rarely detected in natural populations because of its rarity, low detection power of available methods, or both. Here, we develop a new test to detect viability selection over a single generation. In this test, one specific type of chromosomes is chosen as a reference, while all other chromosomes are designated as "focal". The test compares measures of variation between two groups of "focal" chromosomes: those found in reference/focal heterozygous individuals and those found in focal/focal homozygous individuals. In the absence of selection, we do not expect differences between these two groups as long as mating is random. On the other hand, currently acting selection can cause differences in some measures of variation. We applied this test to typing data for In(2L)t inversion polymorphism in a Drosophila melanogaster population, using "standard" (non-inverted) chromosomes as the focal class. Although the frequencies of In(2L)t and standard chromosomes did not deviate from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, we found differences in allele frequency and the number of haplotypes between the two groups of standard chromosomes. This new test, in conjunction with the Hardy-Weinberg test, may shed light on how often strong selection is operating in extant populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17965838What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.