ArticleBMC research notes2011
Improved haplotype-based detection of ongoing selective sweeps towards an application in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in BMC research notes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Haplotype based testing for a better understanding of the selective architecture.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Admixture has obscured signals of historical hard sweeps in humans.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Article
- Article
- Genomic variations and distinct evolutionary rate of rare alleles in Arabidopsis thaliana.BMC evolutionary biology · 2016Article
- Adaptive, convergent origins of the pygmy phenotype in African rainforest hunter-gatherers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- Genome-wide association study using cellular traits identifies a new regulator of root development in Arabidopsis.Nature genetics · 2014Article
- Whole-genome sequencing of multiple Arabidopsis thaliana populations.Nature genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing amount of genome information allows us to address various questions regarding the molecular evolution and population genetics of different species. Such genome-wide data sets including thousands of individuals genotyped at hundreds of thousands of markers require time-efficient and powerful analysis methods. Demography and sampling introduce a bias into present population genetic tests of natural selection, which may confound results. Thus, a modification of test statistics is necessary to introduce time-efficient and unbiased analysis methods.
resultsWe present an improved haplotype-based test of selective sweeps in samples of unequally related individuals. For this purpose, we modified existing tests by weighting the contribution of each individual based on its uniqueness in the entire sample. In contrast to previous tests, this modified test is feasible even for large genome-wide data sets of multiple individuals. We utilize coalescent simulations to estimate the sensitivity of such haplotype-based test statistics to complex demographic scenarios, such as population structure, population growth and bottlenecks. The analysis of empirical data from humans reveals different results compared to previous tests. Additionally, we show that our statistic is applicable to empirical data from Arabidopsis thaliana. Overall, the modified test leads to a slight but significant increase of power to detect selective sweeps among all demographic scenarios.
conclusionsThe concept of this modification might be applied to other statistics in population genetics to reduce the intrinsic bias of demography and sampling. Additionally, the combination of different test statistics may further improve the performance of tests for natural selection.
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.