ArticlePLoS genetics2014
Approximation to the distribution of fitness effects across functional categories in human segregating polymorphisms.
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 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolutionary dynamics under phenotypic uncertainty.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The impact of non-neutral synonymous mutations when inferring selection on nonsynonymous mutations.Genetics · 2025Article
- Outcrossing Complicates Mutation Purging by Trapping Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Structural Variant Mutations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Hill-Robertson interference may bias the inference of fitness effects of new mutations in highly selfing species.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2025Article
- Unifying approaches from statistical genetics and phylogenetics for mapping phenotypes in structured populations.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Hill-Robertson interference may bias the inference of fitness effects of new mutations in highly selfing species.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- An efficient and robust ABC approach to infer the rate and strength of adaptation.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- CADD v1.7: using protein language models, regulatory CNNs and other nucleotide-level scores to improve genome-wide variant predictions.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Gene birth in a model of non-genic adaptation.BMC biology · 2023Article
- impMKT: the imputed McDonald and Kreitman test, a straightforward correction that significantly increases the evidence of positive selection of the McDonald and Kreitman test at the gene level.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Review
- Article
- Adaptive gene misregulation.Genetics · 2021Article
- Impact of Genetic Variation in Gene Regulatory Sequences: A Population Genomics Perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Probing the aggregated effects of purifying selection per individual on 1,380 medical phenotypes in the UK Biobank.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- Background Selection Does Not Mimic the Patterns of Genetic Diversity Produced by Selective Sweeps.Genetics · 2020Article
- Purifying Selection in Corvids Is Less Efficient on Islands.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Population size influences the type of nucleotide variations in humans.BMC genetics · 2019Article
- Estimation of allele-specific fitness effects across human protein-coding sequences and implications for disease.Genome research · 2019Article
- Measuring intolerance to mutation in human genetics.Nature genetics · 2019Review
- CADD: predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
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
Quantifying the proportion of polymorphic mutations that are deleterious or neutral is of fundamental importance to our understanding of evolution, disease genetics and the maintenance of variation genome-wide. Here, we develop an approximation to the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of segregating single-nucleotide mutations in humans. Unlike previous methods, we do not assume that synonymous mutations are neutral or not strongly selected, and we do not rely on fitting the DFE of all new nonsynonymous mutations to a single probability distribution, which is poorly motivated on a biological level. We rely on a previously developed method that utilizes a variety of published annotations (including conservation scores, protein deleteriousness estimates and regulatory data) to score all mutations in the human genome based on how likely they are to be affected by negative selection, controlling for mutation rate. We map this and other conservation scores to a scale of fitness coefficients via maximum likelihood using diffusion theory and a Poisson random field model on SNP data. Our method serves to approximate the deleterious DFE of mutations that are segregating, regardless of their genomic consequence. We can then compare the proportion of mutations that are negatively selected or neutral across various categories, including different types of regulatory sites. We observe that the distribution of intergenic polymorphisms is highly peaked at neutrality, while the distribution of nonsynonymous polymorphisms has a second peak at [Formula: see text]. Other types of polymorphisms have shapes that fall roughly in between these two. We find that transcriptional start sites, strong CTCF-enriched elements and enhancers are the regulatory categories with the largest proportion of deleterious polymorphisms.
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.