Inferring Parameters of the Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Mutations When Beneficial Mutations Are Strongly Advantageous and Rare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) for new mutations is central in evolutionary genetics. Analysis of molecular data under the McDonald-Kreitman test has suggested that adaptive substitutions make a substantial contribution to between-species divergence. Methods have been proposed to estimate the parameters of the distribution of fitness effects for positively selected mutations from the unfolded site frequency spectrum (uSFS). Such methods perform well when beneficial mutations are mildly selected and frequent. However, when beneficial mutations are strongly selected and rare, they may make little contribution to standing variation and will thus be difficult to detect from the uSFS. In this study, I analyze uSFS data from simulated populations subject to advantageous mutations with effects on fitness ranging from mildly to strongly beneficial. As expected, frequent, mildly beneficial mutations contribute substantially to standing genetic variation and parameters are accurately recovered from the uSFS. However, when advantageous mutations are strongly selected and rare, there are very few segregating in populations at any one time. Fitting the uSFS in such cases leads to underestimates of the strength of positive selection and may lead researchers to false conclusions regarding the relative contribution adaptive mutations make to molecular evolution. Fortunately, the parameters for the distribution of fitness effects for harmful mutations are estimated with high accuracy and precision. The results from this study suggest that the parameters of positively selected mutations obtained by analysis of the uSFS should be treated with caution and that variability at linked sites should be used in conjunction with standing variability to estimate parameters of the distribution of fitness effects in the future.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".