4.8 Article

Evidence that the rate of strong selective sweeps increases with population size in the great apes

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605660114

关键词

selective sweep; population size; great ape; adaptive evolutionary rate; mutation limitation

资金

  1. European Commission-funded 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development NEXTGENE Project
  2. Danish Research Council for Independent Research [1323-00076A]
  3. European Molecular Biology Organization
  4. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [BFU2014-55090-P]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [BFU2015-7116]
  6. Fundacio Zoo Barcelona
  7. [BFU2015-6215-ERC]
  8. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying the number of selective sweeps and their combined effects on genomic diversity in humans and other great apes is notoriously difficult. Here we address the question using a comparative approach to contrast diversity patterns according to the distance from genes in all great ape taxa. The extent of diversity reduction near genes compared with the rest of intergenic sequences is greater in a species with larger effective population size. Also, the maximum distance from genes at which the diversity reduction is observed is larger in species with large effective population size. In Sumatran orangutans, the overall genomic diversity is similar to 30% smaller than diversity levels far from genes, whereas this reduction is only 9% in humans. We show by simulation that selection against deleterious mutations in the form of background selection is not expected to cause these differences in diversity among species. Instead, selective sweeps caused by positive selection can reduce diversity level more severely in a large population if there is a higher number of selective sweeps per unit time. We discuss what can cause such a correlation, including the possibility that more frequent sweeps in larger populations are due to a shorter waiting time for the right mutations to arise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据