Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26744812›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2016

Genome-wide selective sweeps and gene-specific sweeps in natural bacterial populations.

Matthew L Bendall, Sarah Lr Stevens, Leong-Keat Chan, Stephanie Malfatti, Patrick Schwientek, Julien Tremblay, Wendy Schackwitz, Joel Martin, Amrita Pati, Brian Bushnell and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing 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

139 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ZipStrain Enables Rapid and Precise Strain-Resolved Metagenomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

79 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

19 authors.

Matthew L BendallDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Sarah Lr StevensDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Leong-Keat ChanDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Stephanie MalfattiDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Patrick SchwientekDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Julien TremblayDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Wendy SchackwitzDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Joel MartinDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Amrita PatiDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Brian BushnellDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Jeff FroulaDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Dongwan KangDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Susannah G TringeDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6479-8427
Stefan BertilssonDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Limnology and Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mary A MoranDepartment of Marine Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0702-8167
Ashley ShadeMicrobiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Ryan J NewtonSchool of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Katherine D McMahonDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Rex R MalmstromDOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple models describe the formation and evolution of distinct microbial phylogenetic groups. These evolutionary models make different predictions regarding how adaptive alleles spread through populations and how genetic diversity is maintained. Processes predicted by competing evolutionary models, for example, genome-wide selective sweeps vs gene-specific sweeps, could be captured in natural populations using time-series metagenomics if the approach were applied over a sufficiently long time frame. Direct observations of either process would help resolve how distinct microbial groups evolve. Here, from a 9-year metagenomic study of a freshwater lake (2005-2013), we explore changes in single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) frequencies and patterns of gene gain and loss in 30 bacterial populations. SNP analyses revealed substantial genetic heterogeneity within these populations, although the degree of heterogeneity varied by >1000-fold among populations. SNP allele frequencies also changed dramatically over time within some populations. Interestingly, nearly all SNP variants were slowly purged over several years from one population of green sulfur bacteria, while at the same time multiple genes either swept through or were lost from this population. These patterns were consistent with a genome-wide selective sweep in progress, a process predicted by the 'ecotype model' of speciation but not previously observed in nature. In contrast, other populations contained large, SNP-free genomic regions that appear to have swept independently through the populations prior to the study without purging diversity elsewhere in the genome. Evidence for both genome-wide and gene-specific sweeps suggests that different models of bacterial speciation may apply to different populations coexisting in the same environment.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideBacteriaBiological EvolutionGene FrequencyGenetic VariationGenome, BacterialPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID26744812
PMCPMC4918448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.