Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila

Open access
Sawyer, Stanley A., Parsch, John, Zhang, Zhi, Hartl, Daniel L.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We have estimated the selective effects of amino acid replacements in natural populations by comparing levels of polymorphism in 91 genes in African populations of Drosophila melanogaster with their divergence from Drosophila simulans . The genes include about equal numbers whose level of expression in adults is greater in males, greater in females, or approximately equal in the sexes. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to sample key parameters in the stationary distribution of polymorphism and divergence in a model in which the selective effect of each nonsynonymous mutation is regarded as a random sample from some underlying normal distribution whose mean may differ from one gene to the next. Our analysis suggests that ≈95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is ≈70%. On the other hand, ≈95% of fixed differences between species are positively selected, although the scaled selection coefficient ( N e s ) is very small. We estimate that ≈46% of amino acid replacements have N e s < 2, ≈84% have N e s < 4, and ≈99% have N e s < 7. Although positive selection among amino acid differences between species seems pervasive, most of the selective effects could be regarded as nearly neutral. There are significant differences in selection between sex-biased and unbiased genes, which relate primarily to the mean of the distributions of mutational effects and the fraction of slightly deleterious and weakly beneficial mutations that are fixed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0701572104

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Sawyer, S. A., Parsch, J., Zhang, Z., & Hartl, D. L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-04-17
Volume
104
Issue
16
Pages
6504-6510
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2135662698
Cited by
163
References
2
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0701572104
The paper
Sawyer, S. A., Parsch, J., Zhang, Z., & Hartl, D. L. (2007). Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701572104

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.