Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21954163›Full record

ArticleGenetics2011

Quantifying the variation in the effective population size within a genome.

Toni I Gossmann, Megan Woolfit, Adam Eyre-Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. De Novo Genes.Annual review of genetics · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Genomic analyses elucidateEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  8. Genomic Insights into High-Altitude Adaptation: A Comparative Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Toni I GossmannSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK.
Megan Woolfit
Adam Eyre-Walker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic VariationGenomePopulation DensityAnimalsArabidopsisDrosophila melanogasterHumansRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID21954163
PMCPMC3241429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.