ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2023
Power of neutrality tests for detecting natural selection.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunistic fungi in tropical beaches: Diversity, WHO fungal priority pathogens, and antifungal resistance case study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Phylogeography and Population Structure of the Invasive Land SnailInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Genetic diversity and evolution of endogenous pararetroviruses acrossFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
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
Detection of natural selection is one of the main interests in population genetics. Thus, many tests have been developed for detecting natural selection using genomic data. Although it is recognized that the utility of tests depends on several evolutionary factors, such as the timing of selection, strength of selection, frequency of selected alleles, demographic events, and initial frequency of selected allele when selection started acting (softness of selection), the relationships between such evolutionary factors and the power of tests are not yet entirely clear. In this study, we investigated the power of 4 tests: Tajiama's D, Fay and Wu's H, relative extended haplotype homozygosity (rEHH), and integrated haplotype score (iHS), under ranges of evolutionary parameters and demographic models to quantitatively expand the understanding of approaches for detecting selection. The results show that each test detects selection within a limited parameter range, and there are still wide ranges of parameters for which none of these tests work effectively. In addition, the parameter space in which each test shows the highest power overlaps the empirical results of previous research. These results indicate that our present perspective of adaptation is limited to only a part of actual adaptation.
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.