↓ Skip to main content

Systematic underestimation of the age of selected alleles

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.
Title
Systematic underestimation of the age of selected alleles
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2012.00165
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna L. Kelley

Abstract

A common interpretation of genome-wide selection scans is that the dispersal of anatomically modern humans out of Africa and into diverse environments led to a number of genetic adaptations. If so, patterns of polymorphism from non-African individuals should show the signature of adaptations dating to 40,000-100,000 Kya, coinciding with the main exodus from Africa. However, scans of polymorphism data from a few populations have yielded conflicting results about the chronology of local, population-specific adaptations. In particular, a number of papers report very recent ages for selected alleles in humans, which postdate the development of agriculture 10 Kya, and suggest that adaptive differences among human populations are much more recent. I present an analysis of simulations suggesting a downward bias in methods commonly used to estimate the age of selected alleles. These findings indicate that an estimate of a time to the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) obtained using standard methods (used as a proxy for the age of an allele) of less than 10 Kya is consistent with an allele that actually became selected before the onset of agriculture and potentially as early as 50 Kya. These findings suggest that the genomic scans for selection may be consistent with selective pressures tied to the Out of Africa expansion of modern human populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 6%
Germany 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Professor 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 August 2012.
All research outputs
#17,664,478
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,007
of 11,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,325
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#169
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.