Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genomic Variation in Natural Populations of Drosophila melanogaster

Open access
Langley, Charles H, Stevens, Kristian, Cardeno, Charis, Lee, Yuh Chwen G, Schrider, Daniel R, Pool, John E, Langley, Sasha A, Suarez, Charlyn, Corbett-Detig, Russell B, Kolaczkowski, Bryan, Fang, Shu, Nista, Phillip M, Holloway, Alisha K, Kern, Andrew D, Dewey, Colin N, Song, Yun S, Hahn, Matthew W, Begun, David J·2012·Genetics

Abstract

This report of independent genome sequences of two natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster (37 from North America and 6 from Africa) provides unique insight into forces shaping genomic polymorphism and divergence. Evidence of interactions between natural selection and genetic linkage is abundant not only in centromere- and telomere-proximal regions, but also throughout the euchromatic arms. Linkage disequilibrium, which decays within 1 kbp, exhibits a strong bias toward coupling of the more frequent alleles and provides a high-resolution map of recombination rate. The juxtaposition of population genetics statistics in small genomic windows with gene structures and chromatin states yields a rich, high-resolution annotation, including the following: (1) 5′- and 3′-UTRs are enriched for regions of reduced polymorphism relative to lineage-specific divergence; (2) exons overlap with windows of excess relative polymorphism; (3) epigenetic marks associated with active transcription initiation sites overlap with regions of reduced relative polymorphism and relatively reduced estimates of the rate of recombination; (4) the rate of adaptive nonsynonymous fixation increases with the rate of crossing over per base pair; and (5) both duplications and deletions are enriched near origins of replication and their density correlates negatively with the rate of crossing over. Available demographic models of X and autosome descent cannot account for the increased divergence on the X and loss of diversity associated with the out-of-Africa migration. Comparison of the variation among these genomes to variation among genomes from D. simulans suggests that many targets of directional selection are shared between these species.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1534/genetics.112.142018

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Langley, C. H., Stevens, K., Cardeno, C., Lee, Y. C. G., Schrider, D. R., Pool, J. E., Langley, S. A., Suarez, C., Corbett-Detig, R. B., Kolaczkowski, B., Fang, S., Nista, P. M., Holloway, A. K., Kern, A. D., Dewey, C. N., Song, Y. S., Hahn, M. W., & Begun, D. J.
Venue
Genetics
Published
2012-10-01
Volume
192
Issue
2
Pages
533-598
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2138007075
Cited by
337
References
17
FWCI
20.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Genomic Variation in Natural Populations of Drosophila melanogaster. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.112.142018
The paper
Langley, C. H., Stevens, K., Cardeno, C., Lee, Y. C. G., Schrider, D. R., Pool, J. E., Langley, S. A., Suarez, C., Corbett-Detig, R. B., Kolaczkowski, B., Fang, S., Nista, P. M., Holloway, A. K., Kern, A. D., Dewey, C. N., Song, Y. S., Hahn, M. W., & Begun, D. J. (2012). Genomic Variation in Natural Populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.142018

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.