ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2012
Major role of positive selection in the evolution of conservative segments of Drosophila proteins.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Genetics of Adaptation of the Ascomycetous Fungus Podospora anserina to Submerged Cultivation.Genome biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Searching for Signatures of Cold Climate Adaptation inFrontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Estimating the parameters of background selection and selective sweeps inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Compensatory Evolution of Intrinsic Transcription Terminators in Bacillus Cereus.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Accelerated pathway evolution in mouse-like rodents involves cell cycle control.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015Article
- Patterns of positive selection in seven ant genomes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2014Article
- Prevalence of multinucleotide replacements in evolution of primates and Drosophila.Molecular biology and evolution · 2013Article
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
Slow evolution of conservative segments of coding and non-coding DNA is caused by the action of negative selection, which removes new mutations. However, the mode of selection that affects the few substitutions that do occur within such segments remains unclear. Here, we show that the fraction of allele replacements that were driven by positive selection, and the strength of this selection, is the highest within the conservative segments of Drosophila protein-coding genes. The McDonald-Kreitman test, applied to the data on variation in Drosophila melanogaster and in Drosophila simulans, indicates that within the most conservative protein segments, approximately 72 per cent (approx. 80%) of allele replacements were driven by positive selection, as opposed to only approximately 44 per cent (approx. 53%) at rapidly evolving segments. Data on multiple non-synonymous substitutions at a codon lead to the same conclusion and additionally indicate that positive selection driving allele replacements at conservative sites is the strongest, as it accelerates evolution by a factor of approximately 40, as opposed to a factor of approximately 5 at rapidly evolving sites. Thus, random drift plays only a minor role in the evolution of conservative DNA segments, and those relatively rare allele replacements that occur within such segments are mostly driven by substantial positive selection.
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.