A new test suggests that balancing selection maintains hundreds of non-synonymous polymorphisms in the human genome
Soni, V.; Vos, M.; Eyre-Walker, A.
Show abstract
The role that balancing selection plays in the maintenance of genetic diversity remains unresolved. Here we introduce a new test, based on the McDonald-Kreitman test, in which the number of polymorphisms that are shared between populations is contrasted to those that are private at selected and neutral sites. We show that this simple test is robust to a variety of demographic changes, and that it can also give a direct estimate of the number of shared polymorphisms that are directly maintained by balancing selection. We apply our method to population genomic data from humans and conclude that more than a thousand non-synonymous polymorphisms are subject to balancing selection.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Background selection from unlinked sites causes non-independent evolution of deleterious mutations 97%
- Impact of mutation rate and selection at linked sites on DNA variation across the genomes of humans and other homininae 97%
- Individual-based modeling of genome evolution in haplodiploid organisms 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biases in ARG-based inference of historical population size in populations experiencing selection 97%
- Interactions between natural selection and recombination shape the genomic landscape of introgression 97%
- The impact of purifying and background selection on the inference of population history: problems and prospects 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Inversions Can Accumulate Balanced Sexual Antagonism: Evidence from Simulations and Drosophila Experiments 95%
- The genomic footprint of social stratification in admixing American populations 95%
- Decreased adaptation at human disease genes as a possible consequence of interference between advantageous and deleterious variants 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.