Cited by 333Evolution and Genetic DynamicsRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsPhilosophy and History of Science

Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation

Open access
Ohta, Tomoko·2002·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The nearly neutral theory contends that the interaction of drift and selection is important and occurs at various levels, including synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in protein coding regions and sequence turnover of regulatory elements. Recent progress of the theory is reviewed, and the interaction between drift and selection is suggested to differ at these different levels. Weak selective force on synonymous changes is stable, whereas its consequence on nonsynonymous changes depends on environmental factors. Selection on differentiation of regulatory elements is even more dependent on environmental factors than on amino acid changes. Of particular significance is the role of drift in the evolution of gene regulation that directly participates in morphological evolution. The range of near neutrality depends on the effective size of the population that is influenced by selected linked loci. In addition to the effective population size, molecular chaperones such as heat shock protein 90 have significant effects on the range of near neutrality.

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.252626899

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The fixation of nearly-neutral alleles of small selective effect is expected to be greatest in small populations.

    “Therefore, the fixation of nearly-neutral alleles of small selective effect is expected to be greatest in small populations 23,24 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [24]

  • The predicted correlation of generation time with mutation rate has been supported by studies comparing rates of molecular evolution with generation time (or body size) across vertebrate species.

    “The predicted correlation of generation time with mutation rate 24 has been supported by studies that compare the rates of molecular evolution with generation time (or its correlate, body size) across a range of genes for several vertebrate species 35,37-39 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [24]

  • Tomoko Ohta provided an important extension of the neutral theory by recognizing the crucial role of effective population size in the influence of selection.

    “Tomoko Ohta 22-24 provided an important extension of the neutral theory by recognizing the crucial role of effective population size in the influence of selection.”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [24]

  • A mutation would be effectively neutral if |s| < 1/4N_e, where N_e is the effective population size.

    “So, a mutation would be effectively neutral if |s| &lt; 1/4N e , where N e is the effective population size.”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [6]Carroll, S. B., Grenier, J. K. &amp; Weatherbee, S. D. (2001) From DNA to Diversity (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford).
  2. [27]Akashi, H. &amp; Gojobori, T. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 3695-3700.
  3. [32]Clark, A. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 2950-2954.
  4. [38]Ohta, T. (2002) Genetica , in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ohta, T.
Affiliations
National Institute of Genetics (JP)
Corresponding author
Ohta, Tomoko
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2002-12-02
Volume
99
Issue
25
Pages
16134-16137
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1963674435
Cited by
333
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
nearly neutral theory, genetic drift, natural selection, synonymous substitutions, nonsynonymous substitutions, gene regulatory evolution, morphological evolution, effective population size, linked loci, HSP90, molecular chaperones
MeSH terms
Animals, Drosophila, Drosophila melanogaster, Gene Expression Regulation, Genes, Genetic Linkage, Models, Genetic, Regulatory Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Selection, Genetic, Species Specificity, Arabidopsis, Molecular Chaperones, Evolution, Molecular, Amino Acid Substitution, 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