ArticleGenetics2010
Estimating the parameters of selection on nonsynonymous mutations in Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. miranda.
Article in Genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relaxed Purifying Selection is Associated with an Accumulation of Transposable Elements in Flies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Changing Population Size in McDonald-Kreitman Style Analyses: Artifactual Correlations and Adaptive Evolution between Humans and Chimpanzees.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.Genetics · 2021Article
- Molecular population genetics of Sex-lethal (Sxl) in the Drosophila melanogaster species group: a locus that genetically interacts with Wolbachia pipientis in Drosophila melanogaster.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Greater strength of selection and higher proportion of beneficial amino acid changing mutations in humans compared with mice andGenome research · 2021Article
- Extensive Recombination Suppression and Epistatic Selection Causes Chromosome-Wide Differentiation of a Selfish Sex Chromosome inGenetics · 2020Article
- The Impact of Protein Architecture on Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Genetic Diversity on the Sex Chromosomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2018Review
- Article
- Natural Selection Drives Rapid Functional Evolution of Young Drosophila Duplicate Genes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Genomics of parallel adaptation at two timescales in Drosophila.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
- Molecular Population Genetics.Genetics · 2017Review
- Article
- Repeated Duplication of Argonaute2 Is Associated with Strong Selection and Testis Specialization in Drosophila.Genetics · 2016Article
- Article
- Rapid evolution of the intersexual genetic correlation for fitness in Drosophila melanogaster.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2016Article
- Adaptive Evolution Is Substantially Impeded by Hill-Robertson Interference in Drosophila.Molecular biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Effects of Interference Between Selected Loci on the Mutation Load, Inbreeding Depression, and Heterosis.Genetics · 2015Article
- Causes of natural variation in fitness: evidence from studies of Drosophila populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Review
- Faster-X effects in two Drosophila lineages.Genome biology and evolution · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present the results of surveys of diversity in sets of >40 X-linked and autosomal loci in samples from natural populations of Drosophila miranda and D. pseudoobscura, together with their sequence divergence from D. affinis. Mean silent site diversity in D. miranda is approximately one-quarter of that in D. pseudoobscura; mean X-linked silent diversity is about three-quarters of that for the autosomes in both species. Estimates of the distribution of selection coefficients against heterozygous, deleterious nonsynonymous mutations from two different methods suggest a wide distribution, with coefficients of variation greater than one, and with the average segregating amino acid mutation being subject to only very weak selection. Only a small fraction of new amino acid mutations behave as effectively neutral, however. A large fraction of amino acid differences between D. pseudoobscura and D. affinis appear to have been fixed by positive natural selection, using three different methods of estimation; estimates between D. miranda and D. affinis are more equivocal. Sources of bias in the estimates, especially those arising from selection on synonymous mutations and from the choice of genes, are discussed and corrections for these applied. Overall, the results show that both purifying selection and positive selection on nonsynonymous mutations are pervasive.
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.