ArticleGenome biology and evolution2020
Population Size, Sex and Purifying Selection: Comparative Genomics of Two Sister Taxa of the Wild Yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic characterization and diversity of dsRNA viruses and their killer satellites in a natural population of the yeastVirus evolution · 2026Article
- Beyond recombination: Exploring the impact of meiotic frequency on genome-wide genetic diversity.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Horizontal Transfer and Recombination Fuel Ty4 Retrotransposon Evolution in Saccharomyces.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Effects of mode of reproduction on genetic polymorphism and divergence in wild yams (Dioscoreaceae:Plant diversity · 2025Article
- Ancient and recent origins of shared polymorphisms in yeast.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Population Genomics of the Facultatively Sexual Liverwort Marchantia polymorpha.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Evolutionary Genomics of Sex-Related Chromosomes at the Base of the Green Lineage.Genome biology and evolution · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study uses population genomic data to estimate demographic and selection parameters in two sister lineages of the wild yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus and compare their evolution. We first estimate nucleotide and recombinational diversities in each of the two lineages to infer their population size and frequency of sex and then analyze the rate of mutation accumulation since divergence from their inferred common ancestor to estimate the generation time and efficacy of selection. We find that one of the lineages has significantly higher silent nucleotide diversity and lower linkage disequilibrium, indicating a larger population with more frequent sexual generations. The same lineage also shows shorter generation time and higher efficacy of purifying selection, the latter consistent with the finding of larger population size and more frequent sex. Similar analyses are also performed on the ancestries of individual strains within lineages and we find significant differences between strains implying variation in rates of mitotic cell divisions. Our sample includes some strains originating in the Chernobyl nuclear-accident exclusion zone, which has been subjected to high levels of radiation for nearly 30 years now. We find no evidence, however, for increased rates of mutation. Finally, there is a positive correlation between rates of mutation accumulation and length of growing period, as measured by latitude of the place of origin of strains. Our study illustrates the power of genomic analyses in estimating population and life history parameters and testing predictions based on population genetic theory.
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.