Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7714912›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution1995

Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian genes and the nearly neutral theory.

T Ohta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing 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

95 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

T OhtaNational Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts larger generation-time effects for synonymous than for nonsynonymous substitutions. This prediction is tested using the sequences of 49 single-copy genes by calculating the average and variance of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian star phylogenies (rodentia, artiodactyla, and primates). The average pattern of the 49 genes supports the prediction of the nearly neutral theory, with some notable exceptions. The nearly neutral theory also predicts that the variance of the evolutionary rate is larger than the value predicted by the completely neutral theory. This prediction is tested by examining the dispersion index (ratio of the variance to the mean), which is positively correlated with the average substitution number. After weighting by the lineage effects, this correlation almost disappears for nonsynonymous substitutions, but not quite so for synonymous substitutions. After weighting, the dispersion indices of both synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions still exceed values expected under the simple Poisson process. The results indicate that both the systematic bias in evolutionary rate among the lineages and the episodic type of rate variation are contributing to the large variance. The former is more significant to synonymous substitutions than to nonsynonymous substitutions. Isochore evolution may be similar to synonymous substitutions. The rate and pattern found here are consistent with the nearly neutral theory, such that the relative contributions of drift and selection differ between the two types of substitutions. The results are also consistent with Gillespie's episodic selection theory.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological EvolutionMammalsModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID7714912

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.