Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30924871›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2019

The Impact of Natural Selection on Short Insertion and Deletion Variation in the Great Tit Genome.

Henry J Barton, Kai Zeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Henry J BartonDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Kai ZengDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insertions and deletions (INDELs) remain understudied, despite being the most common form of genetic variation after single nucleotide polymorphisms. This stems partly from the challenge of correctly identifying the ancestral state of an INDEL and thus identifying it as an insertion or a deletion. Erroneously assigned ancestral states can skew the site frequency spectrum, leading to artificial signals of selection. Consequently, the selective pressures acting on INDELs are, at present, poorly resolved. To tackle this issue, we have recently published a maximum likelihood approach to estimate the mutation rate and the distribution of fitness effects for INDELs. Our approach estimates and controls for the rate of ancestral state misidentification, overcoming issues plaguing previous INDEL studies. Here, we apply the method to INDEL polymorphism data from ten high coverage (∼44×) European great tit (Parus major) genomes. We demonstrate that coding INDELs are under strong purifying selection with a small proportion making it into the population (∼4%). However, among fixed coding INDELs, 71% of insertions and 86% of deletions are fixed by positive selection. In noncoding regions, we estimate ∼80% of insertions and ∼52% of deletions are effectively neutral, the remainder show signatures of purifying selection. Additionally, we see evidence of linked selection reducing INDEL diversity below background levels, both in proximity to exons and in areas of low recombination.

Indexed as

INDEL MutationSelection, GeneticAnimalsExonsGenetic FitnessGenome-Wide Association StudyLikelihood FunctionsMutation RatePasseriformesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRecombination, Geneticadaptive mutationdeletionsdistribution of fitness effectsinsertionslinked selection

Identifiers

PMID30924871
PMCPMC6543879

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.