The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation.
Open accessAbstract
Selection against deleterious alleles maintained by mutation may cause a reduction in the amount of genetic variability at linked neutral sites. This is because a new neutral variant can only remain in a large population for a long period of time if it is maintained in gametes that are free of deleterious alleles, and hence are not destined for rapid elimination from the population by selection. Approximate formulas are derived for the reduction below classical neutral values resulting from such background selection against deleterious mutations, for the mean times to fixation and loss of new mutations, nucleotide site diversity, and number of segregating sites. These formulas apply to random-mating populations with no genetic recombination, and to populations reproducing exclusively asexually or by self-fertilization. For a given selection regime and mating system, the reduction is an exponential function of the total mutation rate to deleterious mutations for the section of the genome involved. Simulations show that the effect decreases rapidly with increasing recombination frequency or rate of outcrossing. The mean time to loss of new neutral mutations and the total number of segregating neutral sites are less sensitive to background selection than the other statistics, unless the population size is of the order of a hundred thousand or more. The stationary distribution of allele frequencies at the neutral sites is correspondingly skewed in favor of rare alleles, compared with the classical neutral result. Observed reductions in molecular variation in low recombination genomic regions of sufficiently large size, for instance in the centromere-proximal regions of Drosophila autosomes or in highly selfing plant populations, may be partly due to background selection against deleterious mutations.
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
Cited by
A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09534 · Cited by 7,877
Hitchhiking Under Positive Darwinian Selection
Fay, J. C., & Wu, C.-I. (2000) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/155.3.1405 · Cited by 1,819
GERAD1 Consortium, Pardiñas, A. F., CRESTAR Consortium, Holmans, P., Pocklington, A. J., Escott-Price, V., Ripke, S., Carrera, N., Legge, S. E., Bishop, S., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0059-2 · Cited by 1,552
Molecular Signatures of Natural Selection
Nielsen, R. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.112420 · Cited by 1,641
Cruickshank, T. E., & Hahn, M. W. (2014) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12796 · Cited by 1,061
Metadata
- Authors
- Charlesworth, B., Morgan, M. T., & Charlesworth, D.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-08-01
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1289-1303
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2126204254
- Cited by
- 1,803
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/134.4.1289
- The paper
- Charlesworth, B., Morgan, M. T., & Charlesworth, D. (1993). The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/134.4.1289
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.