ArticleGenetics2008
An empirical test for branch-specific positive selection.
Article in Genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Positive Selection in Gene Regulatory Factors Suggests Adaptive Pleiotropic Changes During Human Evolution.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Uncovering adaptive evolution in the human lineage.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Alcohol impairs J774.16 macrophage-like cell antimicrobial functions in Acinetobacter baumannii infection.Virulence · 2013Article
- The site-wise log-likelihood score is a good predictor of genes under positive selection.Journal of molecular evolution · 2013Article
- Evidence for positive selection in the gene fruitless in Anastrepha fruit flies.BMC evolutionary biology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of phylogenetic analysis to predict positive selection specific to human genes is complicated by the very close evolutionary relationship with our nearest extant primate relatives, chimpanzees. To assess the power and limitations inherent in use of maximum-likelihood (ML) analysis of codon substitution patterns in such recently diverged species, a series of simulations was performed to assess the impact of several parameters of the evolutionary model on prediction of human-specific positive selection, including branch length and d(N)/d(S) ratio. Parameters were varied across a range of values observed in alignments of 175 transcription factor (TF) genes that were sequenced in 12 primate species. The ML method largely lacks the power to detect positive selection that has occurred since the most recent common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. An alternative null model was developed on the basis of gene-specific evaluation of the empirical distribution of ML results, using simulated neutrally evolving sequences. This empirical test provides greater sensitivity to detect lineage-specific positive selection in the context of recent evolutionary divergence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.