The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PERSPECTIVE: DETECTING ADAPTIVE MOLECULAR POLYMORPHISM: LESSONS FROM THE MHC
Abstract
In the 1960s, when population geneticists first began to collect data on the amount of genetic variation in natural populations, balancing selection was invoked as a possible explanation for how such high levels of molecular variation are maintained. However, the predictions of the neutral theory of molecular evolution have since become the standard by which cases of balancing selection may be inferred. Here we review the evidence for balancing selection acting on the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) of vertebrates, a genetic system that defies many of the predictions of neutrality. We apply many widely used tests of neutrality to MHC data as a benchmark for assessing the power of these tests. These tests can be categorized as detecting selection in the current generation, over the history of populations, or over the histories of species. We find that selection is not detectable in MHC datasets in every generation, population, or every evolutionary lineage. This suggests either that selection on the MHC is heterogeneous or that many of the current neutrality tests lack sufficient power to detect the selection consistently. Additionally, we identify a potential inference problem associated with several tests of neutrality. We demonstrate that the signals of selection may be generated in a relatively short period of microevolutionary time, yet these signals may take exceptionally long periods of time to be erased in the absence of selection. This is especially true for the neutrality test based on the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions. Inference of the nature of the selection events that create such signals should be approached with caution. However, a combination of tests on different time scales may overcome such problems.
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
A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Kumar, S., & Hedges, S. B. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/31927 · Cited by 1,936
C. Genetics of Man Enzyme polymorphisms in man
Harris, H. (1966) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1966.0032 · Cited by 611
Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria
Modiano, D., Luoni, G., Sirima, B. S., Simporé, J., Verra, F., Konaté, A., Rastrelli, E., Olivieri, A., Calissano, C., Paganotti, G. M., et al. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35104556 · Cited by 381
Cited by
The evolutionary genetics of personality
Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.629 · Cited by 610
Advances in the Evolutionary Understanding of MHC Polymorphism
Radwan, J., Babik, W., Kaufman, J., Lenz, T. L., & Winternitz, J. (2020) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2020.01.008 · Cited by 333
Does reduced MHC diversity decrease viability of vertebrate populations?
Radwan, J., Biedrzycka, A., & Babik, W. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.026 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Garrigan, D., & Hedrick, P. W.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1707-1722
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2155408399
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.21
- 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
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.