Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20071384›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2010

How pathogens drive genetic diversity: MHC, mechanisms and misunderstandings.

Lewis G Spurgin, David S Richardson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 352 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
352citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

352 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

292 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Lewis G SpurginCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
David S Richardson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes have been put forward as a model for studying how genetic diversity is maintained in wild populations. Pathogen-mediated selection (PMS) is believed to generate the extraordinary levels of MHC diversity observed. However, establishing the relative importance of the three proposed mechanisms of PMS (heterozygote advantage, rare-allele advantage and fluctuating selection) has proved extremely difficult. Studies have attempted to differentiate between mechanisms of PMS using two approaches: (i) comparing MHC diversity with that expected under neutrality and (ii) relating MHC diversity to pathogen regime. Here, we show that in many cases the same predictions arise from the different mechanisms under these approaches, and that most studies that have inferred one mechanism of selection have not fully considered the alternative explanations. We argue that, while it may be possible to demonstrate that particular mechanisms of PMS are occurring, resolving their relative importance within a system is probably impossible. A more realistic target is to continue to demonstrate when and where the different mechanisms of PMS occur, with the aim of determining their relative importance across systems. We put forward what we believe to be the most promising approaches that will allow us to progress towards achieving this.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationHost-Pathogen InteractionsAnimalsBirdsFishesMajor Histocompatibility ComplexParasitesSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID20071384
PMCPMC2842774

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.