MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952909073 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msy188

Understanding the factors that shape patterns of nucleotide diversity in the house mouse genome

2018· article· en· W2952909073 on OpenAlexaff
Tom R. Booker, Peter D. Keightley

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeNucleotide diversityGeneticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Background selectionEvolutionary biologyNegative selectionSingle-nucleotide polymorphismDiversity (politics)Genome evolutionPopulationGenetic diversityComputational biologyGeneAlleleGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major goal of population genetics has been to determine the extent by which selection at linked sites influences patterns of neutral nucleotide diversity in the genome. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that diversity is influenced by both positive and negative selection. For example, in many species there are troughs in diversity surrounding functional genomic elements, consistent with the action of either background selection (BGS) or selective sweeps. In this study, we investigated the causes of the diversity troughs that are observed in the wild house mouse genome. Using the unfolded site frequency spectrum, we estimated the strength and frequencies of deleterious and advantageous mutations occurring in different functional elements in the genome. We then used these estimates to parameterize forward-in-time simulations of chromosomes, using realistic distributions of functional elements and recombination rate variation in order to determine whether selection at linked sites can explain the observed patterns of nucleotide diversity. The simulations suggest that BGS alone cannot explain the dips in diversity around either exons or conserved noncoding elements. A combination of BGS and selective sweeps produces deeper dips in diversity than BGS alone, but the inferred parameters of selection cannot fully explain the patterns observed in the genome. Our results provide evidence of sweeps shaping patterns of nucleotide diversity across the mouse genome and also suggest that infrequent, strongly advantageous mutations play an important role in this. The limitations of using the unfolded site frequency spectrum for inferring the frequency and effects of advantageous mutations are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207