Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20308100›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2010

Genetic hitchhiking versus background selection: the controversy and its implications.

Wolfgang Stephan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing 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

85 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Accessible, realistic genome simulation with selection using stdpopsim.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 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

1 author.

Wolfgang StephanSection of Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biology II, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, , Grosshaderner Strasse 2, 82152 Planegg, Germany. stephan@bio.lmu.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The controversy on the relative importance of background selection (BGS; against deleterious mutations) and genetic hitchhiking (associated with positive directional selection) in explaining patterns of nucleotide variation in natural populations stimulated research activities for almost a decade. Despite efforts from many theorists and empiricists, fundamental questions are still open, in particular, for the population genetics of regions of reduced recombination. On the other hand, the development of the BGS and hitchhiking models and the long struggle to distinguish them, all of which seem to be a purely academic exercise, led to quite practical advances that are useful for the identification of genes involved in adaptation and domestication.

Indexed as

Crossing Over, GeneticModels, GeneticSelection, GeneticAnimalsGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMicrosatellite Repeats

Identifiers

PMID20308100
PMCPMC2871815

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.