ArticleAdvances in bioinformatics2008
A tutorial of the poisson random field model in population genetics.
Article in Advances in bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robustness in population-structure and demographic-inference results derived from the Aedes aegypti genotyping chip and whole-genome sequencing data.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- fastDFE: Fast and Flexible Inference of the Distribution of Fitness Effects.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Inferring the distributions of fitness effects and proportions of strongly deleterious mutations.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Quantifying the fraction of new mutations that are recessive lethal.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2023Article
- Distinguishing Among Evolutionary Forces Acting on Genome-Wide Base Composition: Computer Simulation Analysis of Approximate Methods for Inferring Site Frequency Spectra of Derived Mutations.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- Inference of Distribution of Fitness Effects and Proportion of Adaptive Substitutions from Polymorphism Data.Genetics · 2017Article
- Positive Selection Pressure Drives Variation on the Surface-Exposed Variable Proteins of the Pathogenic Neisseria.PloS one · 2016Article
- Population Genomics of Human Adaptation.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2013Article
- SNP ascertainment bias in population genetic analyses: why it is important, and how to correct it.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2013Review
- Disease-associated alleles in genome-wide association studies are enriched for derived low frequency alleles relative to HapMap and neutral expectations.BMC medical genomics · 2010Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population genetics is the study of allele frequency changes driven by various evolutionary forces such as mutation, natural selection, and random genetic drift. Although natural selection is widely recognized as a bona-fide phenomenon, the extent to which it drives evolution continues to remain unclear and controversial. Various qualitative techniques, or so-called "tests of neutrality", have been introduced to detect signatures of natural selection. A decade and a half ago, Stanley Sawyer and Daniel Hartl provided a mathematical framework, referred to as the Poisson random field (PRF), with which to determine quantitatively the intensity of selection on a particular gene or genomic region. The recent availability of large-scale genetic polymorphism data has sparked widespread interest in genome-wide investigations of natural selection. To that end, the original PRF model is of particular interest for geneticists and evolutionary genomicists. In this article, we will provide a tutorial of the mathematical derivation of the original Sawyer and Hartl PRF model.
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.