Registrer deg | Logg på | FAQ      [?] 
CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Recent | Unread | Search | Authors | Tags | Export

The McDonald-Kreitman Test and Slightly Deleterious Mutations

by: Jane Charlesworth, Adam Eyre-Walker
Mol Biol Evol, Vol. 25, No. 6. (1 June 2008), pp. 1007-1015.


View FullText article


X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Abstract

It is possible to estimate the proportion of substitutions that are due to adaptive evolution using the numbers of silent and nonsilent polymorphisms and substitutions in a McDonald and Kreitman-type analysis. Unfortunately, this estimate of adaptive evolution is biased downward by the segregation of slightly deleterious mutations. It has been suggested that 1 way to cope with the effects of these slightly deleterious mutations is to remove low-frequency polymorphisms from the analysis. We investigate the performance of this method theoretically. We show that although removing low-frequency polymorphisms does indeed reduce the bias in the estimate of adaptive evolution, the estimate is always downwardly biased, often to the extent that one would not be able to detect adaptive evolution, even if it existed. The method is reasonably satisfactory, only if the rate of adaptive evolution is high and the distribution of fitness effects for slightly deleterious mutations is very leptokurtic. Our analysis suggests that adaptive evolution could be quite prevalent in humans (>8%) and still not be detectable using current methodologies. Our analysis also suggests that the level of adaptive evolution has probably been underestimated, possibly substantially, in both bacteria and Drosophila. 10.1093/molbev/msn005


X BibTeX record

X RIS record



RIS BibTeX
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.