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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Slightly Deleterious Mutant Substitutions in Evolution
OHTA, T. (1973) · Nature · doi:10.1038/246096a0 · Cited by 1,104
Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation
Ohta, T. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.252626899 · Cited by 333
Cited by
Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny
Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06341 · Cited by 2,010
The evolution of sex-biased genes and sex-biased gene expression
Ellegren, H., & Parsch, J. (2007) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2167 · Cited by 925
Titanium Dioxide in the Service of the Biomedical Revolution
Rajh, T., Dimitrijevic, N. M., Bissonnette, M., Koritarov, T., & Konda, V. (2014) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500029g · Cited by 293
A Population Genetics-Phylogenetics Approach to Inferring Natural Selection in Coding Sequences
Wilson, D. J., Hernandez, R. D., Andolfatto, P., & Przeworski, M. (2011) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002395 · Cited by 85
Pervasive positive selection on duplicated and nonduplicated vertebrate protein coding genes
Studer, R. A., Penel, S., Duret, L., & Robinson-Rechavi, M. (2008) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.076992.108 · Cited by 84
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.