Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42728425›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2026

Genomic insights into natural selection in recent human history.

Pontus Skoglund, Iain Mathieson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Pontus SkoglundFrancis Crick Institute, London, UK. pontus.skoglund@crick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3021-5913
Iain MathiesonDepartment of Genetics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. mathi@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4256-3982

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over a century, scientists have debated the extent to which genetic and phenotypic variation among present-day humans is the result of natural selection - in which heritable traits influence survival or reproduction - versus neutral processes such as genetic drift or population history. The initial sequencing of the human genome and subsequent population resequencing studies enabled genome-scale searches for signatures of selection in present-day genomes. This first generation of genome-wide selection scans identified many targets but left open questions about the timing and nature of selection, making it challenging to identify environmental and biological drivers. Recent methodological advances based on reconstructing ancestral recombination graphs have increased the potential power and resolution of selection scans based on present-day genomes, while the availability of new data on ancient DNA has facilitated the direct reconstruction of genetic change through time. However, there is little consensus on how to use these data to detect and interpret signatures of selection, while avoiding confounders. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the impact of selection on human genomic diversity and highlight conceptual advances in our understanding of human evolution over the past 10,000 years.

Identifiers

PMID42728425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.