Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30085180›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2018

Biased Inference of Selection Due to GC-Biased Gene Conversion and the Rate of Protein Evolution in Flycatchers When Accounting for It.

Paulina Bolívar, Carina F Mugal, Matteo Rossi, Alexander Nater, Mi Wang, Ludovic Dutoit, Hans Ellegren

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. How Much DoesGenetics · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paulina BolívarDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Carina F MugalDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Matteo RossiDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Alexander NaterDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mi WangDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ludovic DutoitDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hans EllegrenDepartment of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uppsala University · SELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rate of recombination impacts on rates of protein evolution for at least two reasons: it affects the efficacy of selection due to linkage and influences sequence evolution through the process of GC-biased gene conversion (gBGC). We studied how recombination, via gBGC, affects inferences of selection in gene sequences using comparative genomic and population genomic data from the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). We separately analyzed different mutation categories ("strong"-to-"weak," "weak-to-strong," and GC-conservative changes) and found that gBGC impacts on the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, and leads to that the rate of adaptive evolution and the proportion of adaptive mutations among nonsynonymous substitutions are underestimated by 22-33%. It also biases inferences of demographic history based on the site frequency spectrum. In light of this impact, we suggest that inferences of selection (and demography) in lineages with pronounced gBGC should be based on GC-conservative changes only. Doing so, we estimate that 10% of nonsynonymous mutations are effectively neutral and that 27% of nonsynonymous substitutions have been fixed by positive selection in the flycatcher lineage. We also find that gene expression level, sex-bias in expression, and the number of protein-protein interactions, but not Hill-Robertson interference (HRI), are strong determinants of selective constraint and rate of adaptation of collared flycatcher genes. This study therefore illustrates the importance of disentangling the effects of different evolutionary forces and genetic factors in interpretation of sequence data, and from that infer the role of natural selection in DNA sequence evolution.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene ConversionSelection, GeneticAnimalsFemaleMaleSongbirds

Identifiers

PMID30085180
PMCPMC6188562
OpenAlexW2886748060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.