ArticleGenetics2023
A gene-level test for directional selection on gene expression.
Article in Genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ancient DNA and Human Physiology.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Beyond two alleles: multiallelic genotypic selection and its estimation from time-series data.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Insights into trait-association of selection signatures and adaptive eQTL in indigenous African cattle.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Predicting Functional Consequences of Recent Natural Selection in Britain.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Predicting functional consequences of recent natural selection in Britain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Most variants identified in human genome-wide association studies and scans for selection are noncoding. Interpretation of their effects and the way in which they contribute to phenotypic variation and adaptation in human populations is therefore limited by our understanding of gene regulation and the difficulty of confidently linking noncoding variants to genes. To overcome this, we developed a gene-wise test for population-specific selection based on combinations of regulatory variants. Specifically, we use the QX statistic to test for polygenic selection on cis-regulatory variants based on whether the variance across populations in the predicted expression of a particular gene is higher than expected under neutrality. We then applied this approach to human data, testing for selection on 17,388 protein-coding genes in 26 populations from the Thousand Genomes Project. We identified 45 genes with significant evidence (FDR<0.1) for selection, including FADS1, KHK, SULT1A2, ITGAM, and several genes in the HLA region. We further confirm that these signals correspond to plausible population-level differences in predicted expression. While the small number of significant genes (0.2%) is consistent with most cis-regulatory variation evolving under genetic drift or stabilizing selection, it remains possible that there are effects not captured in this study. Our gene-level QX score is independent of standard genomic tests for selection, and may therefore be useful in combination with traditional selection scans to specifically identify selection on regulatory variation. Overall, our results demonstrate the utility of combining population-level genomic data with functional data to understand the evolution of gene expression.
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.