ArticleGenetics2012
The role of background selection in shaping patterns of molecular evolution and variation: evidence from variability on the Drosophila X chromosome.
Article in Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 114 citations in OpenAlex.
- Popformer: Learning general signatures of positive selection with a self-supervised transformer.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Detecting Positive Selection by Modeling Structure Within Images of Genetic Variation.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Seasonal fluctuations in fitness result in severe reductions in effective population size.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Popformer: Learning general signatures of positive selection with a self-supervised transformer.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Contrasting Evolutionary Trajectories Under Paternal Genome Elimination in Male and Female Citrus Mealybugs.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Digital Image Processing to Detect Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Signals of selection and ancestry in independently feral Gallus gallus populations.Molecular ecology · 2024Article
- The evolutionary maintenance of ancient recombining sex chromosomes in the ostrich.PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Enrichment of Hard Sweeps on the X Chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- X chromosomes show relaxed selection and complete somatic dosage compensation across Timema stick insect species.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2022Article
- How Can We Resolve Lewontin's Paradox?Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- A spatially aware likelihood test to detect sweeps from haplotype distributions.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Shared evolutionary trajectories of three independent neo-sex chromosomes inGenome research · 2021Article
- The Effects of GC-Biased Gene Conversion on Patterns of Genetic Diversity among and across Butterfly Genomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
- How Good Are Predictions of the Effects of Selective Sweeps on Levels of Neutral Diversity?Genetics · 2020Article
- The Impact of Recessive Deleterious Variation on Signals of Adaptive Introgression in Human Populations.Genetics · 2020Article
- Article
- A Study of Faster-Z Evolution in the Great Tit (Parus major).Genome biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Assessing genomic diversity and signatures of selection in Original Braunvieh cattle using whole-genome sequencing data.BMC genomics · 2020Article
- Population Genomics on the Fly: Recent Advances in Drosophila.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Review
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the putatively ancestral population of Drosophila melanogaster, the ratio of silent DNA sequence diversity for X-linked loci to that for autosomal loci is approximately one, instead of the expected "null" value of 3/4. One possible explanation is that background selection (the hitchhiking effect of deleterious mutations) is more effective on the autosomes than on the X chromosome, because of the lack of crossing over in male Drosophila. The expected effects of background selection on neutral variability at sites in the middle of an X chromosome or an autosomal arm were calculated for different models of chromosome organization and methods of approximation, using current estimates of the deleterious mutation rate and distributions of the fitness effects of deleterious mutations. The robustness of the results to different distributions of fitness effects, dominance coefficients, mutation rates, mapping functions, and chromosome size was investigated. The predicted ratio of X-linked to autosomal variability is relatively insensitive to these variables, except for the mutation rate and map length. Provided that the deleterious mutation rate per genome is sufficiently large, it seems likely that background selection can account for the observed X to autosome ratio of variability in the ancestral population of D. melanogaster. The fact that this ratio is much less than one in D. pseudoobscura is also consistent with the model's predictions, since this species has a high rate of crossing over. The results suggest that background selection may play a major role in shaping patterns of molecular evolution and variation.
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.