ArticleGenome biology and evolution2025
A Short-Term View of Protein Sequence Evolution from Salmonella.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much of the study of protein sequence evolution is based on sequence changes inferred to have occurred in nature. The sequences compared for this purpose are usually sufficiently distant that purifying selection has had nearly its full effect and most of the changes inferred have been exposed to a variety of conditions. Here, I make use of large numbers of Salmonella genome sequences to study changes known to be of very recent origin because they are inferred from comparison of very closely related sequences. The effects of purifying selection are weak yet discernible on this short timescale: the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous changes is smaller than expected under selective neutrality, but only slightly so. Essential genes have lower rates of nonsynonymous change, as they do on a longer timescale, but much more of this association remains after controlling for expression level. Positive selection for nonsynonymous change is inferred for 151 genes. For nearly half of these, this is attributable to selection for loss of function. Other forms of positive selection inferred include selection for amino acid changes that make enzymes less sensitive to antibiotics and selection for activating changes to proteins involved in transcriptional regulation. Positively selected variants of many genes are likely favored only under unusual conditions and disfavored in the long term, making detection of the positive selection with more distant comparisons difficult or impossible. The short-term view provided by close comparisons complements the long-term view obtained from more distant comparisons such as those between species.
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.