Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19907702›Full record

ArticleCommunicative & integrative biology2009

Trans-species polymorphism, HLA-disease associations and the evolution of the MHC.

Cock van Oosterhout

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communicative & integrative biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cock van OosterhoutUniversity of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. C.Van-Oosterhout@hull.ac.uk
University of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the paradigm is that major histocompatibility complex (MHC) polymorphism is maintained by balancing selection on the immune genes. However, other evolutionary forces besides selection also play a role in the population genetics of this multigene family. van Oosterhout proposed a new theory of MHC evolution called associative balancing complex (ABC) evolution.1 This theory incorporates the effects of the evolutionary forces in the entire MHC region (peri-MHC), and it proposes that recessive deleterious mutations can accumulate in the peri-MHC in a process similar to Muller's ratchet.2 These mutations are not easily purged because epistasis and high gene diversity in the MHC reduce the efficacy of natural selection. Because natural selection is less efficient, it could also make the MHC prone to the onslaught of genomic parasites such as retroviruses and transposable elements (TEs). The accumulated genetic load has important consequences for the evolution of this immune gene family, and it can reinforce linkage disequilibria and help to maintain the MHC polymorphism. ABC evolution offers new insights into some of the most puzzling aspects of the MHC, including the occurrence of identical MHC sequences in diverged species (i.e., trans-species polymorphism). It may also explain why the large numbers of disease-associated mutations are not removed by natural selection, and why the genes that protect vertebrates against infectious diseases are associated to such a wide variety of genetic disorders.

Indexed as

balancing selectioncoevolutionary arms raceHLA disease-associationhuman leukocyte antigen (HLA)linkage disequilibriummajor histocompatibility complex (MHC)mutational loadretrovirustransposable elementstrans-species polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID19907702
PMCPMC2775235
OpenAlexW2162172810

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.