Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24968283›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2014

Background selection as baseline for nucleotide variation across the Drosophila genome.

Josep M Comeron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing 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

93 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evolution of quantitative traits with background selection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Josep M ComeronDepartment of Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America; Interdisciplinary Program in Genetics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America.

Funding

Fine-scale recombination rate variation within and between Drosophila speciesRC2GM092501 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI COMERON, JOSEP M, JONES, CORBIN D · 2009 to 2010
$1.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS RC2 GM092501NIGMS NIH HHS RC2GM092501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The constant removal of deleterious mutations by natural selection causes a reduction in neutral diversity and efficacy of selection at genetically linked sites (a process called Background Selection, BGS). Population genetic studies, however, often ignore BGS effects when investigating demographic events or the presence of other types of selection. To obtain a more realistic evolutionary expectation that incorporates the unavoidable consequences of deleterious mutations, we generated high-resolution landscapes of variation across the Drosophila melanogaster genome under a BGS scenario independent of polymorphism data. We find that BGS plays a significant role in shaping levels of variation across the entire genome, including long introns and intergenic regions distant from annotated genes. We also find that a very large percentage of the observed variation in diversity across autosomes can be explained by BGS alone, up to 70% across individual chromosome arms at 100-kb scale, thus indicating that BGS predictions can be used as baseline to infer additional types of selection and demographic events. This approach allows detecting several outlier regions with signal of recent adaptive events and selective sweeps. The use of a BGS baseline, however, is particularly appropriate to investigate the presence of balancing selection and our study exposes numerous genomic regions with the predicted signature of higher polymorphism than expected when a BGS context is taken into account. Importantly, we show that these conclusions are robust to the mutation and selection parameters of the BGS model. Finally, analyses of protein evolution together with previous comparisons of genetic maps between Drosophila species, suggest temporally variable recombination landscapes and, thus, local BGS effects that may differ between extant and past phases. Because genome-wide BGS and temporal changes in linkage effects can skew approaches to estimate demographic and selective events, future analyses should incorporate BGS predictions and capture local recombination variation across genomes and along lineages.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic VariationGenome, InsectAnimalsChromosomesDNA, IntergenicDrosophila melanogasterIntronsMutationNucleotidesSelection, GeneticDNA, IntergenicNucleotides

Identifiers

PMID24968283
PMCPMC4072542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.