ArticleGenetics2016
Refining the Use of Linkage Disequilibrium as a Robust Signature of Selective Sweeps.
Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selection Signature Analyses Revealed Genes Associated With Adaptation, Production, and Reproduction in Selected Goat Breeds in Kenya.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Dynamics of genomic architecture during composite breed development in cattle.Animal genetics · 2020Article
- In the presence of population structure: From genomics to candidate genes underlying local adaptation.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Positive selection in Europeans and East-Asians at the ABCA12 gene.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Population structure and local selection yield high genomic variation in Mimulus guttatus.Molecular ecology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a selective sweep, characteristic patterns of linkage disequilibrium can arise in the genomic region surrounding a selected locus. These have been used to infer past selective sweeps. However, the recombination rate is known to vary substantially along the genome for many species. We here investigate the effectiveness of current (Kelly's [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]) and novel statistics at inferring hard selective sweeps based on linkage disequilibrium distortions under different conditions, including a human-realistic demographic model and recombination rate variation. When the recombination rate is constant, Kelly's [Formula: see text] offers high power, but is outperformed by a novel statistic that we test, which we call [Formula: see text] We also find this statistic to be effective at detecting sweeps from standing variation. When recombination rate fluctuations are included, there is a considerable reduction in power for all linkage disequilibrium-based statistics. However, this can largely be reversed by appropriately controlling for expected linkage disequilibrium using a genetic map. To further test these different methods, we perform selection scans on well-characterized HapMap data, finding that all three statistics-[Formula: see text] Kelly's [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]-are able to replicate signals at regions previously identified as selection candidates based on population differentiation or the site frequency spectrum. While [Formula: see text] replicates most candidates when recombination map data are not available, the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] statistics are more successful when recombination rate variation is controlled for. Given both this and their higher power in simulations of selective sweeps, these statistics are preferred when information on local recombination rate variation is available.
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.