Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26176952›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Tandem Duplications and the Limits of Natural Selection in Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila simulans.

Rebekah L Rogers, Julie M Cridland, Ling Shao, Tina T Hu, Peter Andolfatto, Kevin R Thornton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evolutionary Changes ofEcology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Rebekah L RogersEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Julie M CridlandEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.
Ling ShaoEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America.
Tina T HuEcology and Evolutionary Biology and the Lewis Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Peter AndolfattoEcology and Evolutionary Biology and the Lewis Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Kevin R ThorntonEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America.

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Christine Hui · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
Adaptive evolution of non coding DNA and gene expression divergence in DrosophilaR01GM083228 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI ANDOLFATTO, PETER · 2009 to 2013
$1.5M
Population genetics of gene duplications and copy-number variants in the DrosophiR01GM085183 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI THORNTON, KEVIN R. · 2009 to 2013
$1.2M
Evolutionary Impacts of Chromosomal Rearrangements in DrosophilaF32GM099377 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI ROGERS, REBEKAH LEE · 2011 to 2013
$148k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NCI NIH HHS P30CA062203NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM099377NIGMS NIH HHS F32-GM099377NIGMS NIH HHS GM085183NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083228NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM083228NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM085183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tandem duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty, and their variation in natural populations is expected to influence adaptive walks. Here, we describe evolutionary impacts of recently-derived, segregating tandem duplications in Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila simulans. We observe an excess of duplicated genes involved in defense against pathogens, insecticide resistance, chorion development, cuticular peptides, and lipases or endopeptidases associated with the accessory glands across both species. The observed agreement is greater than expectations on chance alone, suggesting large amounts of convergence across functional categories. We document evidence of widespread selection on the D. simulans X, suggesting adaptation through duplication is common on the X. Despite the evidence for positive selection, duplicates display an excess of low frequency variants consistent with largely detrimental impacts, limiting the variation that can effectively facilitate adaptation. Standing variation for tandem duplications spans less than 25% of the genome in D. yakuba and D. simulans, indicating that evolution will be strictly limited by mutation, even in organisms with large population sizes. Effective whole gene duplication rates are low at 1.17 × 10-9 per gene per generation in D. yakuba and 6.03 × 10-10 per gene per generation in D. simulans, suggesting long wait times for new mutations on the order of thousands of years for the establishment of sweeps. Hence, in cases where adaptation depends on individual tandem duplications, evolution will be severely limited by mutation. We observe low levels of parallel recruitment of the same duplicated gene in different species, suggesting that the span of standing variation will define evolutionary outcomes in spite of convergence across gene ontologies consistent with rapidly evolving phenotypes.

Indexed as

Genome, InsectSelection, GeneticAnimalsBiological EvolutionDrosophilaDrosophila simulansGene DuplicationGenetic VariationLikelihood FunctionsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideX Chromosome

Identifiers

PMID26176952
PMCPMC4503668

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.