ArticleGenome biology and evolution2009
On reconciling single and recurrent hitchhiking models.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inferring demographic and selective histories from population genomic data using a 2-step approach in species with coding-sparse genomes: an application to human data.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Inferring demographic and selective histories from population genomic data using a two-step approach in species with coding-sparse genomes: an application to human data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Evaluating power to detect recurrent selective sweeps under increasingly realistic evolutionary null models.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2023Article
- Evaluating power to detect recurrent selective sweeps under increasingly realistic evolutionary null models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Population genetic concerns related to the interpretation of empirical outliers and the neglect of common evolutionary processes.Heredity · 2023Article
- Article
- Revisiting the notion of deleterious sweeps.Genetics · 2021Article
- A method for inferring the rate of occurrence and fitness effects of advantageous mutations.Genetics · 2011Article
- Characterizing the influence of effective population size on the rate of adaptation: Gillespie's Darwin domain.Genome biology and evolution · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major focus of modern population genetics involves using polymorphism data in order to identify regions impacted by recent positive selection (so-called genomic scans). Recently, methodology has been proposed not to identify individual loci, but rather to quantify genomic recurrent hitchhiking (RHH) parameters using this same type of polymorphism data. I here examine to what extent genomic scans for adaptively important loci may be informed by recently estimated RHH parameters (and vice versa). I find that published results are largely incompatible with one another, with approximately an order of magnitude more sweeps being empirically identified than would be predicted under RHH estimates. Results demonstrate that making this connection between SHH and RHH models is crucial for a more complete and accurate characterization of adaptive evolution.
Indexed as
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.