↓ Skip to main content

Background selection as null hypothesis in population genomics: insights and challenges from Drosophila studies

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Background selection as null hypothesis in population genomics: insights and challenges from Drosophila studies
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, November 2017
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2016.0471
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The consequences of selection at linked sites are multiple and widespread across the genomes of most species. Here, I first review the main concepts behind models of selection and linkage in recombining genomes, present the difficulty in parametrizing these models simply as a reduction in effective population size (Ne) and discuss the predicted impact of recombination rates on levels of diversity across genomes. Arguments are then put forward in favour of using a model of selection and linkage with neutral and deleterious mutations (i.e. the background selection model, BGS) as a sensible null hypothesis for investigating the presence of other forms of selection, such as balancing or positive. I also describe and compare two studies that have generated high-resolution landscapes of the predicted consequences of selection at linked sites in Drosophila melanogaster Both studies show that BGS can explain a very large fraction of the observed variation in diversity across the whole genome, thus supporting its use as null model. Finally, I identify and discuss a number of caveats and challenges in studies of genetic hitchhiking that have been often overlooked, with several of them sharing a potential bias towards overestimating the evidence supporting recent selective sweeps to the detriment of a BGS explanation. One potential source of bias is the analysis of non-equilibrium populations: it is precisely because models of selection and linkage predict variation in Ne across chromosomes that demographic dynamics are not expected to be equivalent chromosome- or genome-wide. Other challenges include the use of incomplete genome annotations, the assumption of temporally stable recombination landscapes, the presence of genes under balancing selection and the consequences of ignoring non-crossover (gene conversion) recombination events.This article is part of the themed issue 'Evolutionary causes and consequences of recombination rate variation in sexual organisms'.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 29%
Researcher 26 22%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 19%
Computer Science 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 23 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,902,988
of 30,080,742 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#3,058
of 7,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,758
of 346,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#43
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,080,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 346,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.