ArticleGenome biology and evolution2013
Strong mutational bias toward deletions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome is compensated by selection.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Chromatin structure influences rate and spectrum of spontaneous mutations inGenome research · 2023Article
- Pairs of Mutually Compensatory Frameshifting Mutations Contribute to Protein Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- De novo assembly, annotation, and comparative analysis of 26 diverse maize genomes.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- An Intron of Invertebrate Microphthalmia Transcription Factor Gene Is Evolved from a Longer Ancestral Sequence.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2021Article
- Article
- Genome-wide maps of ribosomal occupancy provide insights into adaptive evolution and regulatory roles of uORFs during Drosophila development.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- New Methods for Inferring the Distribution of Fitness Effects for INDELs and SNPs.Molecular biology and evolution · 2018Article
- Molecular Population Genetics.Genetics · 2017Review
- Systematic Mapping of Protein Mutational Space by Prolonged Drift Reveals the Deleterious Effects of Seemingly Neutral Mutations.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
- Intron evolution in Neurospora: the role of mutational bias and selection.Genome research · 2015Article
- Article
- A model for genome size evolution.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2014Article
- Comparative validation of the D. melanogaster modENCODE transcriptome annotation.Genome research · 2014Article
- Natural variation in genome architecture among 205 Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel lines.Genome research · 2014Article
- Genome-wide characterization of insertion and deletion variation in chicken using next generation sequencing.PloS one · 2014Article
- PolymiRTS Database 3.0: linking polymorphisms in microRNAs and their target sites with human diseases and biological pathways.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Naturally occurring deletions of hunchback binding sites in the even-skipped stripe 3+7 enhancer.PloS one · 2014Article
- Rates and genomic consequences of spontaneous mutational events in Drosophila melanogaster.Genetics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insertions and deletions (collectively indels) obviously have a major impact on genome evolution. However, before large-scale data on indel polymorphism became available, it was difficult to estimate the strength of selection acting on indel mutations. Here, we analyze indel polymorphism and divergence in different compartments of the Drosophila melanogaster genome: exons, introns of different lengths, and intergenic regions. Data on low-frequency polymorphisms indicate that 0.036-0.039 short (1-30 nt) insertion mutations and 0.085-0.092 short deletion mutations, with mean lengths 3.23 and 4.78, respectively, occur per single-nucleotide substitution. The excess of short deletion over short insertion mutations implies that indel mutations of these lengths should lead to a loss of approximately 0.30 nt per single-nucleotide replacement. However, polymorphism and divergence data show that this deletion bias is almost completely compensated by selection: Negative selection is stronger against deletions, whereas insertions are more likely to be favored by positive selection. Among the inframe low-frequency polymorphic mutations in exons, long introns, and intergenic regions, selection prevents a larger fraction of deletions (80-87%, depending on the type of the compartment) than of insertions (70-82%) or single-nucleotide substitutions (49-73%), from reaching high frequencies. The corresponding fractions were the lowest in short introns: 66%, 47%, and 15%, respectively, consistent with the weakest selective constraint in them. The McDonald-Kreitman test shows that 32-46% of the deletions and 60-73% of the insertions that were fixed in the recent evolution of D. melanogaster are adaptive, whereas this fraction is only 0-29% for single-nucleotide substitutions.
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.