Cited by 79Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenetic diversity and population structureLanguage and cultural evolution

The probability of parallel genetic evolution from standing genetic variation

MacPherson, A., Nuismer, S. L.·2017·Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Parallel evolution is often assumed to result from repeated adaptation to novel, yet ecologically similar, environments. Here, we develop and analyse a mathematical model that predicts the probability of parallel genetic evolution from standing genetic variation as a function of the strength of phenotypic selection and constraints imposed by genetic architecture. Our results show that the probability of parallel genetic evolution increases with the strength of natural selection and effective population size and is particularly likely to occur for genes with large phenotypic effects. Building on these results, we develop a Bayesian framework for estimating the strength of parallel phenotypic selection from genetic data. Using extensive individual‐based simulations, we show that our estimator is robust across a wide range of genetic and evolutionary scenarios and provides a useful tool for rigorously testing the hypothesis that parallel genetic evolution is the result of adaptive evolution. An important result that emerges from our analyses is that existing studies of parallel genetic evolution frequently rely on data that is insufficient for distinguishing between adaptive evolution and neutral evolution driven by random genetic drift. Overcoming this challenge will require sampling more populations and the inclusion of larger numbers of loci.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jeb.13006

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Reliance on standing variation is expected to increase the repeatability of evolution.

    “Last, reliance on standing variation is expected to increase the repeatability of evolution (MacPherson and Nuismer, 2017; Thompson et al., 2019).”

    From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as MacPherson and Nuismer, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacPherson, A., & Nuismer, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Idaho (US)
Corresponding author
MacPherson, A.
Venue
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Published
2016-11-23
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
326-337
ISSN
  • 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
  • 1420-9101
OpenAlex
W2547332371
Cited by
79
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DEB 1118947, DEB 1450653)
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
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
parallel evolution, standing genetic variation, phenotypic selection, genetic architecture, effective population size, adaptive evolution, genetic drift, mathematical models of evolution, agent-based modeling
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Probability, Selection, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Evolution, Molecular, 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