Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396636›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2020

Considering Genomic Scans for Selection as Coalescent Model Choice.

Rebecca B Harris, Jeffrey D Jensen

Abstract readEvaluation StudyLetter
In one paragraph

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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Inferring the demographic history of aye-ayes (bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. How Can We Resolve Lewontin's Paradox?Genome biology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  17. Effects of Selection at Linked Sites on Patterns of Genetic Variability.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2021
    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.

Rebecca B HarrisSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University.
Jeffrey D JensenSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University.

Funding

Developing novel statistics and coalescent approaches for the improved study of virus evolution R01GM135899 · NIGMS · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI JENSEN, JEFFREY D · 2019 to 2020
$367k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM135899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

First inspired by the seminal work of Lewontin and Krakauer (1973. Distribution of gene frequency as a test of the theory of the selective neutrality of polymorphisms. Genetics 74(1):175-195.) and Maynard Smith and Haigh (1974. The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. Genet Res. 23(1):23-35.), genomic scans for positive selection remain a widely utilized tool in modern population genomic analysis. Yet, the relative frequency and genomic impact of selective sweeps have remained a contentious point in the field for decades, largely owing to an inability to accurately identify their presence and quantify their effects-with current methodologies generally being characterized by low true-positive rates and/or high false-positive rates under many realistic demographic models. Most of these approaches are based on Wright-Fisher assumptions and the Kingman coalescent and generally rely on detecting outlier regions which do not conform to these neutral expectations. However, previous theoretical results have demonstrated that selective sweeps are well characterized by an alternative class of model known as the multiple-merger coalescent. Taken together, this suggests the possibility of not simply identifying regions which reject the Kingman, but rather explicitly testing the relative fit of a genomic window to the multiple-merger coalescent. We describe the advantages of such an approach, which owe to the branching structure differentiating selective and neutral models, and demonstrate improved power under certain demographic scenarios relative to a commonly used approach. However, regions of the demographic parameter space continue to exist in which neither this approach nor existing methodologies have sufficient power to detect selective sweeps.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticSelection, GeneticGenomicsHumanscoalescent theorypopulation geneticsselective sweeps

Identifiers

PMID32396636
PMCPMC7313662

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.