Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30305018›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Effects of evolutionary history on genome wide and phenotypic convergence in Drosophila populations.

Mark A Phillips, Grant A Rutledge, James N Kezos, Zachary S Greenspan, Andrew Talbott, Sara Matty, Hamid Arain, Laurence D Mueller, Michael R Rose, Parvin Shahrestani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Beyond Fixation: Persistent Genetic Variation Under Intense Selection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic Analyses ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A PhillipsDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA. phillim1@uci.edu.
Grant A RutledgeDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA.
James N KezosDepartment of Development, Aging, and Regeneration, Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, San Diego, USA.
Zachary S GreenspanDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA.
Andrew TalbottDepartment of Biological Science, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA.
Sara MattyDepartment of Biological Science, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA.
Hamid ArainDepartment of Biological Science, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA.
Laurence D MuellerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA.
Michael R RoseDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA.
Parvin ShahrestaniDepartment of Biological Science, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92831, USA.
University of California, Irvine · USCalifornia State University, Fullerton · USDiscovery Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies combining experimental evolution and next-generation sequencing have found that adaptation in sexually reproducing populations is primarily fueled by standing genetic variation. Consequently, the response to selection is rapid and highly repeatable across replicate populations. Some studies suggest that the response to selection is highly repeatable at both the phenotypic and genomic levels, and that evolutionary history has little impact. Other studies suggest that even when the response to selection is repeatable phenotypically, evolutionary history can have significant impacts at the genomic level. Here we test two hypotheses that may explain this discrepancy. Hypothesis 1: Past intense selection reduces evolutionary repeatability at the genomic and phenotypic levels when conditions change. Hypothesis 2: Previous intense selection does not reduce evolutionary repeatability, but other evolutionary mechanisms may. We test these hypotheses using D. melanogaster populations that were subjected to 260 generations of intense selection for desiccation resistance and have since been under relaxed selection for the past 230 generations.

resultsWe find that, with the exception of longevity and to a lesser extent fecundity, 230 generations of relaxed selection has erased the extreme phenotypic differentiation previously found. We also find no signs of genetic fixation, and only limited evidence of genetic differentiation between previously desiccation resistance selected populations and their controls.

conclusionOur findings suggest that evolution in our system is highly repeatable even when populations have been previously subjected to bouts of extreme selection. We therefore conclude that evolutionary repeatability can overcome past bouts of extreme selection in Drosophila experimental evolution, provided experiments are sufficiently long and populations are not inbred.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomicsPhenotypeAnimalsBeauveriaDesiccationDrosophila melanogasterFertilityHeterozygotePolymorphism, Single NucleotideAdaptationEvolutionary genomicsEvolutionary historyExperimental evolution

Identifiers

PMID30305018
PMCPMC6180417
OpenAlexW2896138651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.