Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31975165›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2020

Detecting Positive Selection in Populations Using Genetic Data.

Angelos Koropoulis, Nikolaos Alachiotis, Pavlos Pavlidis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mammalian evolution and human mutation burden in Rab GTPases.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Repeated global adaptation across plant species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Mutation-based mechanism and evolution of the potent multidrug efflux pump RE-CmeABC inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deep Learning in Population Genetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Angelos KoropoulisInstitute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Heraklion, Greece.
Nikolaos AlachiotisInstitute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Heraklion, Greece.
Pavlos PavlidisInstitute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, Heraklion, Greece. pavlidis@ics.forth.gr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput genomic sequencing allows to disentangle the evolutionary forces acting in populations. Among evolutionary forces, positive selection has received a lot of attention because it is related to the adaptation of populations in their environments, both biotic and abiotic. Positive selection, also known as Darwinian selection, occurs when an allele is favored by natural selection. The frequency of the favored allele increases in the population and, due to genetic hitchhiking, neighboring linked variation diminishes, creating so-called selective sweeps. Such a process leaves traces in genomes that can be detected in a future time point. Detecting traces of positive selection in genomes is achieved by searching for signatures introduced by selective sweeps, such as regions of reduced variation, a specific shift of the site frequency spectrum, and particular linkage disequilibrium (LD) patterns in the region. A variety of approaches can be used for detecting selective sweeps, ranging from simple implementations that compute summary statistics to more advanced statistical approaches, e.g., Bayesian approaches, maximum-likelihood-based methods, and machine learning methods. In this chapter, we discuss selective sweep detection methodologies on the basis of their capacity to analyze whole genomes or just subgenomic regions, and on the specific polymorphism patterns they exploit as selective sweep signatures. We also summarize the results of comparisons among five open-source software releases (SweeD, SweepFinder, SweepFinder2, OmegaPlus, and RAiSD) regarding sensitivity, specificity, and execution times. Furthermore, we test and discuss machine learning methods and present a thorough performance analysis. In equilibrium neutral models or mild bottlenecks, most methods are able to detect selective sweeps accurately. Methods and tools that rely on linkage disequilibrium (LD) rather than single SNPs exhibit higher true positive rates than the site frequency spectrum (SFS)-based methods under the model of a single sweep or recurrent hitchhiking. However, their false positive rate is elevated when a misspecified demographic model is used to build the distribution of the statistic under the null hypothesis. Both LD and SFS-based approaches suffer from decreased accuracy on localizing the true target of selection in bottleneck scenarios. Furthermore, we present an extensive analysis of the effects of gene flow on selective sweep detection, a problem that has been understudied in selective sweep literature.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticBayes TheoremDatabases, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGene FlowGene FrequencyGenetics, PopulationGenome, HumanHumansLikelihood FunctionsLinkage DisequilibriumMachine LearningModels, GeneticSoftwareMachine learningPositive selectionSelective sweepSoftware toolsSummary statistics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.