Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18791238›Full record

ArticleGenetics2008

Controlling type-I error of the McDonald-Kreitman test in genomewide scans for selection on noncoding DNA.

Peter Andolfatto

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 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. PeerJ · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The evolutionary history of SLC6A4 and the role of plasticity in Macaca.American journal of physical anthropology · 2014
    Article
  12. Population genomics of the honey bee reveals strong signatures of positive selection on worker traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Frequent adaptation and the McDonald-Kreitman test.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Peter AndolfattoDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA. pandolfa@princeton.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Departures from the assumption of homogenously interdigitated neutral and putatively selected sites in the McDonald-Kreitman test can lead to false rejections of the neutral model in the presence of intermediate levels of recombination. This problem is exacerbated by small sample sizes, nonequilibrium demography, recombination rate variation, and in comparisons involving more recently diverged species. I propose that establishing significance levels by coalescent simulation with recombination can improve the fidelity of the test in genomewide scans for selection on noncoding DNA.

Indexed as

Genome, InsectRecombination, GeneticSelection, GeneticAnimalsDNA, IntergenicDrosophilaGenetic LinkageModels, GeneticDNA, Intergenic

Identifiers

PMID18791238
PMCPMC2581974

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.