We have investigated the evidence for positive selection in samples of African, European, and East Asian ancestry at 65 loci associated with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (T2D) previously identified through genome-wide association studies. Selection early in human evolutionary history is predicted to lead to ancestral risk alleles shared between populations, whereas late selection would result in population-specific signals at derived risk alleles. By using a wide variety of tests based on the site frequency spectrum, haplotype structure, and population differentiation, we found no global signal of enrichment for positive selection when we considered all T2D risk loci collectively. However, in a locus-by-locus analysis, we found nominal evidence for positive selection at 14 of the loci. Selection favored the protective and risk alleles in similar proportions, rather than the risk alleles specifically as predicted by the thrifty gene hypothesis, and may not be related to influence on diabetes. Overall, we conclude that past positive selection has not been a powerful influence driving the prevalence of T2D risk alleles.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2026.
All research outputs
#754,427
of 34,601,305 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Human Genetics
#336
of 7,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,490
of 373,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Human Genetics
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,601,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
