Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18515345›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2008

Standard and generalized McDonald-Kreitman test: a website to detect selection by comparing different classes of DNA sites.

Raquel Egea, Sònia Casillas, Antonio Barbadilla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing 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

73 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Allopatric Lineage Divergence of the East Asian Endemic HerbInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article

13 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

3 authors.

Raquel EgeaGenomics, Bioinformatics and Evolution Group, Departament de Genètica i Microbiologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain. raquel.egea@uab.es
Sònia Casillas
Antonio Barbadilla

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The McDonald and Kreitman test (MKT) is one of the most powerful and extensively used tests to detect the signature of natural selection at the molecular level. Here, we present the standard and generalized MKT website, a novel website that allows performing MKTs not only for synonymous and nonsynonymous changes, as the test was initially described, but also for other classes of regions and/or several loci. The website has three different interfaces: (i) the standard MKT, where users can analyze several types of sites in a coding region, (ii) the advanced MKT, where users can compare two closely linked regions in the genome that can be either coding or noncoding, and (iii) the multi-locus MKT, where users can analyze many separate loci in a single multi-locus test. The website has already been used to show that selection efficiency is positively correlated with effective population size in the Drosophila genus and it has been applied to include estimates of selection in DPDB. This website is a timely resource, which will presumably be widely used by researchers in the field and will contribute to enlarge the catalogue of cases of adaptive evolution. It is available at http://mkt.uab.es.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationSelection, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareAnimalsCodonDrosophilaInternetCodon

Identifiers

PMID18515345
PMCPMC2447769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.