ArticleGenome biology and evolution2020
Secondary Evolve and Resequencing: An Experimental Confirmation of Putative Selection Targets without Phenotyping.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2020. 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.
- Pollution-Driven Selection in a Non-Biting Midge: Genome-Wide Responses to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and Copper.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Does a complex life cycle affect adaptation to environmental change? Genome-informed insights for characterizing selection across complex life cycle.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Highly Parallel Genomic Selection Response in Replicated Drosophila melanogaster Populations with Reduced Genetic Variation.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Select and Sequence of a Segregating Sugar Beet Population Provides Genomic Perspective of Host Resistance to SeedlingFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Polyploidy: A Biological Force From Cells to Ecosystems.Trends in cell biology · 2020Review
- Low concordance of short-term and long-term selection responses in experimental Drosophila populations.Molecular ecology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evolve and resequencing (E&R) studies investigate the genomic responses of adaptation during experimental evolution. Because replicate populations evolve in the same controlled environment, consistent responses to selection across replicates are frequently used to identify reliable candidate regions that underlie adaptation to a new environment. However, recent work demonstrated that selection signatures can be restricted to one or a few replicate(s) only. These selection signatures frequently have weak statistical support, and given the difficulties of functional validation, additional evidence is needed before considering them as candidates for functional analysis. Here, we introduce an experimental procedure to validate candidate loci with weak or replicate-specific selection signature(s). Crossing an evolved population from a primary E&R experiment to the ancestral founder population reduces the frequency of candidate alleles that have reached a high frequency. We hypothesize that genuine selection targets will experience a repeatable frequency increase after the mixing with the ancestral founders if they are exposed to the same environment (secondary E&R experiment). Using this approach, we successfully validate two overlapping selection targets, which showed a mutually exclusive selection signature in a primary E&R experiment of Drosophila simulans adapting to a novel temperature regime. We conclude that secondary E&R experiments provide a reliable confirmation of selection signatures that either are not replicated or show only a low statistical significance in a primary E&R experiment unless epistatic interactions predominate. Such experiments are particularly helpful to prioritize candidate loci for time-consuming functional follow-up investigations.
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.