ArticleGenome research2015
A probabilistic method for testing and estimating selection differences between populations.
Article in Genome research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-wide association studies and CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing identify regulatory variants influencing eyebrow thickness in humans.PLoS genetics · 2018Pooled it
- Genetic variants underlying differences in facial morphology in East Asian and European populations.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Inferring Genome-Wide Correlations of Mutation Fitness Effects between Populations.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Dissecting dynamics and differences of selective pressures in the evolution of human pigmentation.Biology open · 2021Article
- Fast Principal-Component Analysis Reveals Convergent Evolution of ADH1B in Europe and East Asia.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human populations around the world encounter various environmental challenges and, consequently, develop genetic adaptations to different selection forces. Identifying the differences in natural selection between populations is critical for understanding the roles of specific genetic variants in evolutionary adaptation. Although numerous methods have been developed to detect genetic loci under recent directional selection, a probabilistic solution for testing and quantifying selection differences between populations is lacking. Here we report the development of a probabilistic method for testing and estimating selection differences between populations. By use of a probabilistic model of genetic drift and selection, we showed that logarithm odds ratios of allele frequencies provide estimates of the differences in selection coefficients between populations. The estimates approximate a normal distribution, and variance can be estimated using genome-wide variants. This allows us to quantify differences in selection coefficients and to determine the confidence intervals of the estimate. Our work also revealed the link between genetic association testing and hypothesis testing of selection differences. It therefore supplies a solution for hypothesis testing of selection differences. This method was applied to a genome-wide data analysis of Han and Tibetan populations. The results confirmed that both the EPAS1 and EGLN1 genes are under statistically different selection in Han and Tibetan populations. We further estimated differences in the selection coefficients for genetic variants involved in melanin formation and determined their confidence intervals between continental population groups. Application of the method to empirical data demonstrated the outstanding capability of this novel approach for testing and quantifying differences in natural selection.
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.