Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35430881›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022

Human genetic admixture through the lens of population genomics.

Shyamalika Gopalan, Samuel Pattillo Smith, Katharine Korunes, Iman Hamid, Sohini Ramachandran, Amy Goldberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Natural selection of immune and metabolic genes associated with health in two lowland Bolivian populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  15. A geometric relationship ofPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  16. Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Shyamalika GopalanDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2608-8472
Samuel Pattillo SmithCenter for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6269-0276
Katharine KorunesDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2648-4707
Iman HamidDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2168-9727
Sohini RamachandranCenter for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9588-7964
Amy GoldbergDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9306-1539
Duke University · USJohn Brown University · US

Funding

Genetics and Genomics Training GrantT32GM136627 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ALLISON E ASHLEY-KOCH · 2020 to 2026
$3.1M
Inferring the evolutionary history of admixed populationsR35GM133481 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Amy Goldberg · 2019 to 2026
$2.8M
Population-genetic methods for inferring recent histories and targets of selection in the biobank eraR35GM139628 · NIGMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Sohini Ramachandran · 2021 to 2026
$2.2M
Predoctoral Training Program in Biological Data Science at Brown UniversityT32GM128596 · NIGMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI RAMACHANDRAN, SOHINI, SANDSTEDE, BJORN · 2018 to 2022
$1.5M
Natural Selection in Admixed PopulationsF32GM139313 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KORUNES, KATHARINE LOVE · 2020 to 2021
$114k
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM133481
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, geneticists have made great strides in understanding how our species' evolutionary history gave rise to current patterns of human genetic diversity classically summarized by Lewontin in his 1972 paper, 'The Apportionment of Human Diversity'. One evolutionary process that requires special attention in both population genetics and statistical genetics is admixture: gene flow between two or more previously separated source populations to form a new admixed population. The admixture process introduces ancestry-based structure into patterns of genetic variation within and between populations, which in turn influences the inference of demographic histories, identification of genetic targets of selection and prediction of complex traits. In this review, we outline some challenges for admixture population genetics, including limitations of applying methods designed for populations without recent admixture to the study of admixed populations. We highlight recent studies and methodological advances that aim to overcome such challenges, leveraging genomic signatures of admixture that occurred in the past tens of generations to gain insights into human history, natural selection and complex trait architecture. This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity'.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationMetagenomicsGene FlowGenetic VariationHuman GeneticsHumansSelection, Geneticadmixturegenetic diversitypopulation genetics

Identifiers

PMID35430881
PMCPMC9014191
OpenAlexW3202183387

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.