ReviewGenes2018
Using the Mutation-Selection Framework to Characterize Selection on Protein Sequences.
Review in Genes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative Structural Bioinformatics and Molecular Dynamics Analyses of Synaptic Vesicle Proteins and Their Water-Soluble QTY-Variants Reveal Membrane Constraints and Evolutionary Coupling of T ⇔ V.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- Near Neutral Selectionist Theories (NNST) for SARS-CoV-2 suggested by the substitution-mutation ratio (c/µ) analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Substitution-Mutation Rate Ratio (c/µ) As Molecular Adaptation Test Beyond Ka/Ks: A SARS-COV-2 Case Study.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Insertions and Deletions: Computational Methods, Evolutionary Dynamics, and Biological Applications.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Review
- PEMPS: a phylogenetic software tool to model the evolution of metabolic pathways.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Enhanced detection and molecular modeling of adaptive mutations in SARS-CoV-2 coding and non-coding regions using the c/µ test.Virus evolution · 2024Article
- An Improved Codon Modeling Approach for Accurate Estimation of the Mutation Bias.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Characterizing Amino Acid Substitution with Complete Linkage of Sites on a Lineage.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Shifts in amino acid preferences as proteins evolve: A synthesis of experimental and theoretical work.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021Review
- Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction: From Chemical Paleogenetics to Maximum Likelihood Algorithms and Beyond.Journal of molecular evolution · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When mutational pressure is weak, the generative process of protein evolution involves explicit probabilities of mutations of different types coupled to their conditional probabilities of fixation dependent on selection. Establishing this mechanistic modeling framework for the detection of selection has been a goal in the field of molecular evolution. Building on a mathematical framework proposed more than a decade ago, numerous methods have been introduced in an attempt to detect and measure selection on protein sequences. In this review, we discuss the structure of the original model, subsequent advances, and the series of assumptions that these models operate under.
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.