ArticleGenetics2011
Quantifying the variation in the effective population size within a genome.
Article in Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 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
57 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond two alleles: multiallelic genotypic selection and its estimation from time-series data.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Recombination Suppression Drives Expansion of the Drosophila Dot Chromosome.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Incorporating genetic load contributes to predicting Arabidopsis thaliana's response to climate change.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Limitations of sequence dissimilarity as a predictor of prokaryotic lineage.Open biology · 2025Review
- De Novo Genes.Annual review of genetics · 2024Review
- Patterns of Change in Nucleotide Diversity Over Gene Length.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Genomic analyses elucidateEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Genomic Insights into High-Altitude Adaptation: A Comparative Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Interchromosomal Colocalization with Parental Genes Is Linked to the Function and Evolution of Mammalian Retrocopies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Approaching autozygosity in a small pedigree of Gochu Asturcelta pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Neural networks for self-adjusting mutation rate estimation when the recombination rate is unknown.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Extreme variation in recombination rate and genetic diversity along the Sylvioidea neo-sex chromosome.Molecular ecology · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparative Genomics Elucidates the Origin of a Supergene Controlling Floral Heteromorphism.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- The estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium are virtually unaffected by natural selection.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Identifying loci under selection via explicit demographic models.Molecular ecology resources · 2021Article
- Inferring Long-Term Effective Population Size with Mutation-Selection Models.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Population Genomics of the Maize Pathogen Ustilago maydis: Demographic History and Role of Virulence Clusters in Adaptation.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Article
- Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Landlocked Threespine Stickleback Populations.Genome biology and evolution · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective population size (N(e)) is one of the most fundamental parameters in population genetics. It is thought to vary across the genome as a consequence of differences in the rate of recombination and the density of selected sites due to the processes of genetic hitchhiking and background selection. Although it is known that there is intragenomic variation in the effective population size in some species, it is not known whether this is widespread or how much variation in the effective population size there is. Here, we test whether the effective population size varies across the genome, between protein-coding genes, in 10 eukaryotic species by considering whether there is significant variation in neutral diversity, taking into account differences in the mutation rate between loci by using the divergence between species. In most species we find significant evidence of variation. We investigate whether the variation in N(e) is correlated to recombination rate and the density of selected sites in four species, for which these data are available. We find that N(e) is positively correlated to recombination rate in one species, Drosophila melanogaster, and negatively correlated to a measure of the density of selected sites in two others, humans and Arabidopsis thaliana. However, much of the variation remains unexplained. We use a hierarchical Bayesian analysis to quantify the amount of variation in the effective population size and show that it is quite modest in all species-most genes have an N(e) that is within a few fold of all other genes. Nonetheless we show that this modest variation in N(e) is sufficient to cause significant differences in the efficiency of natural selection across the genome, by demonstrating that the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous to synonymous polymorphisms is significantly correlated to synonymous diversity and estimates of N(e), even taking into account the obvious nonindependence between these measures.
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.