ArticleGenome biology and evolution2022
A Nearly Neutral Model of Molecular Signatures of Natural Selection after Change in Population Size.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2022. 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.
- Empirical Validation of the Nearly Neutral Theory at Divergence and Population-Genomic Scales Using 144 Placental Mammal Genomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF THE NEARLY NEUTRAL THEORY AT DIVERGENCE AND POPULATION GENOMIC SCALE USING 144 PLACENTAL MAMMALS GENOMES.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Genome Streamlining: Effect of Mutation Rate and Population Size on Genome Size Reduction.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Where the "ruber" Meets the Road: Using the Genome of the Red Diamond Rattlesnake to Unravel the Evolutionary Processes Driving Venom Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Recurrent mutation in the ancestry of a rare variant.Genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nearly neutral theory is a common framework to describe natural selection at the molecular level. This theory emphasizes the importance of slightly deleterious mutations by recognizing their ability to segregate and eventually get fixed due to genetic drift in spite of the presence of purifying selection. As genetic drift is stronger in smaller than in larger populations, a correlation between population size and molecular measures of natural selection is expected within the nearly neutral theory. However, this hypothesis was originally formulated under equilibrium conditions. As most natural populations are not in equilibrium, testing the relationship empirically may lead to confounded outcomes. Demographic nonequilibria, for instance following a change in population size, are common scenarios that are expected to push the selection-drift relationship off equilibrium. By explicitly modeling the effects of a change in population size on allele frequency trajectories in the Poisson random field framework, we obtain analytical solutions of the nonstationary allele frequency spectrum. This enables us to derive exact results of measures of natural selection and effective population size in a demographic nonequilibrium. The study of their time-dependent relationship reveals a substantial deviation from the equilibrium selection-drift balance after a change in population size. Moreover, we show that the deviation is sensitive to the combination of different measures. These results therefore constitute relevant tools for empirical studies to choose suitable measures for investigating the selection-drift relationship in natural populations. Additionally, our new modeling approach extends existing population genetics theory and can serve as foundation for methodological developments.
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.