ArticleGenomics
Ascertaining regions affected by GC-biased gene conversion through weak-to-strong mutational hotspots.
Article in Genomics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- GC-biased gene conversion drives accelerated evolution of ultraconserved elements in mammalian and avian genomes.Genome research · 2023Article
- Mutational Biases and GC-Biased Gene Conversion Affect GC Content in the Plastomes of Dendrobium Genus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
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
Abstract
A major objective for evolutionary biology is to identify regions affected by positive selection. High dN/dS values for proteins and accelerated lineage-specific substitution rates for non-coding regions are considered classic signatures of positive selection. However, these could also be the result of non-adaptive phenomena, such as GC-biased gene conversion (gBGC), which favors the fixation of strong (C/G) over weak (A/T) nucleotides. Recent estimates indicate that gBGC affected up to 20% of regions with signatures of positive selection. Here we evaluate the impact of gBGC through its molecular signature of weak-to-strong mutational hotspots. We implemented specific modifications to the test proposed by Tang and Lewontin (1999) for identifying regions of differential variability and applied it to regions previously investigated for the influence of gBGC. While we found significant agreement with previous reports, our results suggest a smaller influence of gBGC than previously estimated, warranting further development of methods for its detection.
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.