Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19030115›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary bioinformatics online2008

Exploring the evolutionary history of the differentially expressed genes between human populations: action of recent positive selection.

Wei Zhang, M Eileen Dolan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary bioinformatics online, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Wei ZhangSection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
M Eileen Dolan

Funding

Whole GenomeU01GM061393 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI COX, NANCY J, DOLAN, MARY EILEEN · 2000 to 2014
$39.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM061393
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Though debates exist on the early human evolutionary models such as the "Out of Africa" theory, which hypothesizes that modern humans migrated from Africa to Europe about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, Africans and Europeans were geographically separated with minimal gene flow for tens of thousands of years. The variations between the current European and African populations, therefore, should have evolved during this timeframe. To gain more insights into the evolutionary history of human phenotypes including gene expression, it is critical to tell how recent positive selection has played a role in the variations observed in the current populations. Using the list of differentially expressed genes we previously identified between the HapMap samples derived from individuals of African (from Ibadan, Nigeria) and European (from Utah, USA) ancestry, we searched for evidence of selection among these differential genes. We found that 27 differentially expressed genes (out of 356 tested) between these two European and African populations have been under recent positive selection. Our findings suggest that the variation between these two populations appears to be affected primarily by neutral genetic drift and/or stabilizing selection and to a lesser degree by positive selection. Further annotation enrichment analyses showed that these 27 genes under selection were overrepresented in certain Gene Ontology biological processes, molecular functions and cellular components such as transcription, lipid binding and lysosome. Our results can provide unique insights into the evolutionary history of the variation in the gene expression phenotype between these two human populations.

Indexed as

gene expressionhuman evolutionpopulation differencerecent positive selection

Identifiers

PMID19030115
PMCPMC2585739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.