ArticleGenetics2020
How Good Are Predictions of the Effects of Selective Sweeps on Levels of Neutral Diversity?
Article in Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The rights and wrongs of rescaling in population genetics simulations.PLoS genetics · 2026Review
- Article
- Beyond recombination: Exploring the impact of meiotic frequency on genome-wide genetic diversity.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- How Can We Resolve Lewontin's Paradox?Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Meiotic, genomic and evolutionary properties of crossover distribution in Drosophila yakuba.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Revisiting the notion of deleterious sweeps.Genetics · 2021Article
- Effects of Selection at Linked Sites on Patterns of Genetic Variability.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selective sweeps are thought to play a significant role in shaping patterns of variability across genomes; accurate predictions of their effects are, therefore, important for understanding these patterns. A commonly used model of selective sweeps assumes that alleles sampled at the end of a sweep, and that fail to recombine with wild-type haplotypes during the sweep, coalesce instantaneously, leading to a simple expression for sweep effects on diversity. It is shown here that there can be a significant probability that a pair of alleles sampled at the end of a sweep coalesce during the sweep before a recombination event can occur, reducing their expected coalescent time below that given by the simple approximation. Expressions are derived for the expected reductions in pairwise neutral diversities caused by both single and recurrent sweeps in the presence of such within-sweep coalescence, although the effects of multiple recombination events during a sweep are only treated heuristically. The accuracies of the resulting expressions were checked against the results of simulations. For even moderate ratios of the recombination rate to the selection coefficient, the simple approximation can be substantially inaccurate. The selection model used here can be applied to favorable mutations with arbitrary dominance coefficients, to sex-linked loci with sex-specific selection coefficients, and to inbreeding populations. Using the results from this model, the expected differences between the levels of variability on X chromosomes and autosomes with selection at linked sites are discussed, and compared with data on a population of
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.