Cited by 116Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenetic diversity and population structureGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Estimating the genome-wide contribution of selection to temporal allele frequency change

Open access
Buffalo, Vince, Coop, Graham·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Significance: A long-standing problem in evolutionary biology is to understand the processes that shape the genetic composition of populations. In a population without migration, two processes that change allele frequencies are selection, which increases beneficial alleles and removes deleterious ones, and genetic drift, which randomly changes frequencies as some parents contribute more or fewer alleles to the next generation. Previous efforts to disentangle these processes have used genomic samples from a single time point and models of how selection affects neighboring sites (linked selection). Here, we use genomic data taken through time to quantify contributions of selection and drift to genome-wide frequency changes. We show that selection acts over short timescales in three evolve-and-resequence studies and has a sizable genome-wide impact.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1919039117

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent analyses of experimental evolution data from Drosophila suggest that linked selection is a substantial driver of allele frequency change in selection experiments.

    “Recent analyses of experimental evolution data from Drosophila suggest that linked selection is a substantial driver of allele frequency change in selection experiments (Buffalo and Coop 2020).”

    From The neural crest cell hypothesis: no unified explanation for domestication (2021) · cites this paper as Buffalo and Coop 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buffalo, V., & Coop, G.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Buffalo, Vince
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-08-12
Volume
117
Issue
34
Pages
20672-20680
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W3048367870
Cited by
116
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NSF (1650042, 1353380)
  • NIH (R01-GM108779)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
linked selection, selection experiment, genetic drift, standing genetic variation, polygenic adaptation, evolve-and-resequence
MeSH terms
Acclimatization, Adaptation, Biological, Adaptation, Physiological, Alleles, Animals, Biological Evolution, Gene Frequency, Genetics, Population, Humans, Models, Genetic, Population Density, Selection, Genetic, Evolution, Molecular, Multifactorial Inheritance, Genomics, Genetic Drift

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