ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2019
Methods for Estimating Demography and Detecting Between-Locus Differences in the Effective Population Size and Mutation Rate.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization and distribution of de novo mutations in the zebra finch.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Screening of Genes Related to Sex Determination and Differentiation in Mandarin Fish (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- The estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium are virtually unaffected by natural selection.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Evidence for a force favoring GC over AT at short intronic sites in Drosophila simulans and Drosophila melanogaster.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- The germline mutational process in rhesus macaque and its implications for phylogenetic dating.GigaScience · 2021Article
- A Study of Faster-Z Evolution in the Great Tit (Parus major).Genome biology and evolution · 2020Article
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
It is known that the effective population size (Ne) and the mutation rate (u) vary across the genome. Here, we show that ignoring this heterogeneity may lead to biased estimates of past demography. To solve the problem, we develop new methods for jointly inferring past changes in population size and detecting variation in Ne and u between loci. These methods rely on either polymorphism data alone or both polymorphism and divergence data. In addition to inferring demography, we can use the methods to study a variety of questions: 1) comparing sex chromosomes with autosomes (for finding evidence for male-driven evolution, an unequal sex ratio, or sex-biased demographic changes) and 2) analyzing multilocus data from within autosomes or sex chromosomes (for studying determinants of variability in Ne and u). Simulations suggest that the methods can provide accurate parameter estimates and have substantial statistical power for detecting difference in Ne and u. As an example, we use the methods to analyze a polymorphism data set from Drosophila simulans. We find clear evidence for rapid population expansion. The results also indicate that the autosomes have a higher mutation rate than the X chromosome and that the sex ratio is probably female-biased. The new methods have been implemented in a user-friendly package.
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.