Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23821597›Full record

ArticleGenetics2013

Distortions in genealogies due to purifying selection and recombination.

Lauren E Nicolaisen, Michael M Desai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evolution of quantitative traits with background selection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Background selection in recombining genomes and its consequences for the maintenance of variation in complex traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Towards an evolutionary baseline model ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Digital Image Processing to Detect Adaptive Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Lauren E NicolaisenDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Physics, and Faculty of Arts and Sciences Center for Systems Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
Michael M Desai

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purifying selection at many linked sites alters patterns of molecular evolution, reducing overall diversity and distorting the shapes of genealogies. Recombination attenuates these effects; however, purifying selection can significantly distort genealogies even for substantial recombination rates. Here, we show that when selection and/or recombination are sufficiently strong, the genealogy at any single site can be described by a time-dependent effective population size, Ne(t), which has a simple analytic form. Our results illustrate how recombination reduces distortions in genealogies and allow us to quantitatively describe the shapes of genealogies in the presence of strong purifying selection and recombination. We also analyze the effects of a distribution of selection coefficients across the genome.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticRecombination, GeneticSelection, GeneticGenetic FitnessHaploidyPedigreePopulationcoalescentgenealogieslinkagepurifying selectionrecombination

Identifiers

PMID23821597
PMCPMC3761303

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.