Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20333210›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2009

Scanning for the signatures of positive selection for human-specific insertions and deletions.

Chun-Hsi Chen, Trees-Juen Chuang, Ben-Yang Liao, Feng-Chi Chen

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. DNA shape, genetic codes, and evolution.Current opinion in structural biology · 2011
    Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Chun-Hsi Chen
Trees-Juen Chuang
Ben-Yang Liao
Feng-Chi Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-specific small insertions and deletions (HS indels, with lengths <100 bp) are reported to be ubiquitous in the human genome. However, whether these indels contribute to human-specific traits remains unclear. Here we employ a modified McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test and a combinatorial population genetics approach to infer, respectively, the occurrence of positive selection and recent selective sweep events associated with HS indels. We first extract 625,890 HS indels from the human-chimpanzee-macaque-mouse multiple alignments and classify them into nonpolymorphic (41%) and polymorphic (59%) indels with reference to the human indel polymorphism data. The modified MK test is then applied to 100-kb partially overlapped sliding windows across the human genome to scan for the signs of positive selection. After excluding the possibility of biased gene conversion and controlling for false discovery rate, we show that HS indels are potentially positively selected in about 10 Mb of the human genome. Furthermore, the indel-associated positively selected regions overlap with genes more often than expected. However, our result suggests that the potential targets of positive selection are located in noncoding regions. Meanwhile, we also demonstrate that the genomic regions surrounding HS indels are more frequently involved in recent selective sweep than the other regions. In addition, HS indels are associated with distinct recent selective sweep events in different human subpopulations. Our results suggest that HS indels may have been associated with human adaptive changes at both the species level and the subpopulation level.

Indexed as

human-specific indelspositive selectionrecent selective sweep

Identifiers

PMID20333210
PMCPMC2817433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.