ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2020
Detecting Positive Selection in Populations Using Genetic Data.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mammalian evolution and human mutation burden in Rab GTPases.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Repeated global adaptation across plant species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Mitochondrial DNA D-Loop Polymorphisms among the Galla Goats Reveals Multiple Maternal Origins with Implication on the Functional Diversity of the HSP70 Gene.Genetics research · 2024Article
- Demographic modeling of admixed Latin American populations from whole genomes.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Deep convolutional and conditional neural networks for large-scale genomic data generation.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Deep Learning in Population Genetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Whole genome population structure of North Atlantic kelp confirms high-latitude glacial refugia.Molecular ecology · 2022Article
- The Impact of Genetic Surfing on Neutral Genomic Diversity.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Benchmarking the performance of Pool-seq SNP callers using simulated and real sequencing data.Molecular ecology resources · 2021Article
- Detection of breeding signatures in wheat using a linkage disequilibrium-corrected mapping approach.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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
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
Identifiers
31975165What 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.