Exploring signatures of positive selection in pigmentation candidate genes in populations of East Asian ancestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is very limited knowledge about the genes involved in normal pigmentation variation in East Asian populations. We carried out a genome-wide scan of signatures of positive selection using the 1000 Genomes Phase I dataset, in order to identify pigmentation genes showing putative signatures of selective sweeps in East Asia. We applied a broad range of methods to detect signatures of selection including: 1) Tests designed to identify deviations of the Site Frequency Spectrum (SFS) from neutral expectations (Tajima's D, Fay and Wu's H and Fu and Li's D* and F*), 2) Tests focused on the identification of high-frequency haplotypes with extended linkage disequilibrium (iHS and Rsb) and 3) Tests based on genetic differentiation between populations (LSBL). Based on the results obtained from a genome wide analysis of 25 kb windows, we constructed an empirical distribution for each statistic across all windows, and identified pigmentation genes that are outliers in the distribution. RESULTS: Our tests identified twenty genes that are relevant for pigmentation biology. Of these, eight genes (ATRN, EDAR, KLHL7, MITF, OCA2, TH, TMEM33 and TRPM1,) were extreme outliers (top 0.1% of the empirical distribution) for at least one statistic, and twelve genes (ADAM17, BNC2, CTSD, DCT, EGFR, LYST, MC1R, MLPH, OPRM1, PDIA6, PMEL (SILV) and TYRP1) were in the top 1% of the empirical distribution for at least one statistic. Additionally, eight of these genes (BNC2, EGFR, LYST, MC1R, OCA2, OPRM1, PMEL (SILV) and TYRP1) have been associated with pigmentary traits in association studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a number of putative pigmentation genes showing extremely unusual patterns of genetic variation in East Asia. Most of these genes are outliers for different tests and/or different populations, and have already been described in previous scans for positive selection, providing strong support to the hypothesis that recent selective sweeps left a signature in these regions. However, it will be necessary to carry out association and functional studies to demonstrate the implication of these genes in normal pigmentation variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".