The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Natural Selection and the Frequency Distributions of “Silent” DNA Polymorphism in Drosophila
Abstract
In Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Drosophila melanogaster, codon bias may be maintained by a balance among mutation pressure, genetic drift, and natural selection favoring translationally superior codons. Under such an evolutionary model, silent mutations fall into two fitness categories: preferred mutations that increase codon bias and unpreferred changes in the opposite direction. This prediction can be tested by comparing the frequency spectra of synonymous changes segregating within populations; natural selection will elevate the frequencies of advantageous mutations relative to that of deleterious changes. The frequency distributions of preferred and unpreferred mutations differ in the predicted direction among 99 alleles of two D. pseudoobscura genes and five alleles of eight D. simulans genes. This result confirms the existence of fitness classes of silent mutations. Maximum likelihood estimates suggest that selection intensity at silent sites is, on average, very weak in both D. pseudoobscura and D. simulans (|Nes| ≈ 1). Inference of evolutionary processes from within-species sequence variation is often hindered by the assumption of a stationary frequency distribution. This assumption can be avoided when identifying the action of selection and tested when estimating selection intensity.
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
Analyzing Tables of Statistical Tests
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2409177 · Cited by 14,571
SAMPLING VARIANCES OF HETEROZYGOSITY AND GENETIC DISTANCE
Nei, M., & Roychoudhury, A. K. (1974) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/76.2.379 · Cited by 1,641
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
Evolution of synonymous codon usage in metazoans
Duret, L. (2002) · Current Opinion in Genetics & Development · doi:10.1016/s0959-437x(02)00353-2 · Cited by 502
McVean, G. A. T., & Charlesworth, B. (2000) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/155.2.929 · Cited by 336
Codon Usage Bias and tRNA Abundance in Drosophila
Moriyama, E. N., & Powell, J. R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/pl00006256 · Cited by 318
Structural variants exhibit widespread allelic heterogeneity and shape variation in complex traits
Chakraborty, M., Emerson, J. J., Macdonald, S. J., & Long, A. D. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12884-1 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Akashi, H., & Schaeffer, S. W.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-05-01
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 295-307
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2160453425
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Natural Selection and the Frequency Distributions of “Silent” DNA Polymorphism in Drosophila. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/146.1.295
- The paper
- Akashi, H., & Schaeffer, S. W. (1997). Natural Selection and the Frequency Distributions of “Silent” DNA Polymorphism in Drosophila. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/146.1.295
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.