Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18493071›Full record

ArticleGenetics2008

Statistical power analysis of neutrality tests under demographic expansions, contractions and bottlenecks with recombination.

Anna Ramírez-Soriano, Sebastià E Ramos-Onsins, Julio Rozas, Francesc Calafell, Arcadi Navarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing 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

118 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Population Structure and Local Adaptation ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Retention ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    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

58 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

5 authors.

Anna Ramírez-SorianoDepartament de Ciències de la Salut i de la Vida, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Sebastià E Ramos-Onsins
Julio Rozas
Francesc Calafell
Arcadi Navarro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several tests have been proposed to detect departures of nucleotide variability patterns from neutral expectations. However, very different kinds of evolutionary processes, such as selective events or demographic changes, can produce similar deviations from these tests, thus making interpretation difficult when a significant departure of neutrality is detected. Here we study the effects of demography and recombination upon neutrality tests by analyzing their power under sudden population expansions, sudden contractions, and bottlenecks. We evaluate tests based on the frequency spectrum of mutations and the distribution of haplotypes and explore the consequences of using incorrect estimates of the rates of recombination when testing for neutrality. We show that tests that rely on haplotype frequencies-especially Fs and ZnS, which are based, respectively, on the number of different haplotypes and on the r2 values between all pairs of polymorphic sites-are the most powerful for detecting expansions on nonrecombining genomic regions. Nevertheless, they are strongly affected by misestimations of recombination, so they should not be used when recombination levels are unknown. Instead, class I tests, particularly Tajima's D or R2, are recommended.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetics, PopulationModels, GeneticComputer SimulationFounder EffectPhylogenyPopulation DynamicsStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18493071
PMCPMC2390632

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.