Literature DB >> 23341416

A comparison of models to infer the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations.

Athanasios Kousathanas1, Peter D Keightley.   

Abstract

Knowing the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of new mutations is important for several topics in evolutionary genetics. Existing computational methods with which to infer the DFE based on DNA polymorphism data have frequently assumed that the DFE can be approximated by a unimodal distribution, such as a lognormal or a gamma distribution. However, if the true DFE departs substantially from the assumed distribution (e.g., if the DFE is multimodal), this could lead to misleading inferences about its properties. We conducted simulations to test the performance of parametric and nonparametric discretized distribution models to infer the properties of the DFE for cases in which the true DFE is unimodal, bimodal, or multimodal. We found that lognormal and gamma distribution models can perform poorly in recovering the properties of the distribution if the true DFE is bimodal or multimodal, whereas discretized distribution models perform better. If there is a sufficient amount of data, the discretized models can detect a multimodal DFE and can accurately infer the mean effect and the average fixation probability of a new deleterious mutation. We fitted several models for the DFE of amino acid-changing mutations using whole-genome polymorphism data from Drosophila melanogaster and the house mouse subspecies Mus musculus castaneus. A lognormal DFE best explains the data for D. melanogaster, whereas we find evidence for a bimodal DFE in M. m. castaneus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23341416      PMCID: PMC3606097          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.112.148023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  31 in total

1.  Quantifying the slightly deleterious mutation model of molecular evolution.

Authors:  Adam Eyre-Walker; Peter D Keightley; Nick G C Smith; Daniel Gaffney
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Estimating the distribution of fitness effects from DNA sequence data: implications for the molecular clock.

Authors:  Gwenaël Piganeau; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-18       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population.

Authors:  M KIMURA
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1962-06       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Estimating selection on nonsynonymous mutations.

Authors:  Laurence Loewe; Brian Charlesworth; Carolina Bartolomé; Véronique Nöel
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-11-19       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Simultaneous inference of selection and population growth from patterns of variation in the human genome.

Authors:  Scott H Williamson; Ryan Hernandez; Adi Fledel-Alon; Lan Zhu; Rasmus Nielsen; Carlos D Bustamante
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-05-19       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  SLiM: simulating evolution with selection and linkage.

Authors:  Philipp W Messer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 7.  The good fairy godmother of evolutionary genetics.

Authors:  B Charlesworth
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1996-03-01       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Bayesian analysis suggests that most amino acid replacements in Drosophila are driven by positive selection.

Authors:  Stanley A Sawyer; Rob J Kulathinal; Carlos D Bustamante; Daniel L Hartl
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  Distinct changes of genomic biases in nucleotide substitution at the time of Mammalian radiation.

Authors:  Peter F Arndt; Dmitri A Petrov; Terence Hwa
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2003-07-28       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Population genetics of polymorphism and divergence.

Authors:  S A Sawyer; D L Hartl
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.562

View more
  55 in total

1.  SLiM: simulating evolution with selection and linkage.

Authors:  Philipp W Messer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  Comparative population genomics: power and principles for the inference of functionality.

Authors:  David S Lawrie; Dmitri A Petrov
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 11.639

3.  The evolution of selfing is accompanied by reduced efficacy of selection and purging of deleterious mutations.

Authors:  Ramesh Arunkumar; Rob W Ness; Stephen I Wright; Spencer C H Barrett
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 4.  Causes of natural variation in fitness: evidence from studies of Drosophila populations.

Authors:  Brian Charlesworth
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  DNA sequence diversity and the efficiency of natural selection in animal mitochondrial DNA.

Authors:  J James; D Castellano; A Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  Evidence for increased levels of positive and negative selection on the X chromosome versus autosomes in humans.

Authors:  Krishna R Veeramah; Ryan N Gutenkunst; August E Woerner; Joseph C Watkins; Michael F Hammer
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 16.240

7.  Hubby and Lewontin on Protein Variation in Natural Populations: When Molecular Genetics Came to the Rescue of Population Genetics.

Authors:  Brian Charlesworth; Deborah Charlesworth; Jerry A Coyne; Charles H Langley
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Triallelic Population Genomics for Inferring Correlated Fitness Effects of Same Site Nonsynonymous Mutations.

Authors:  Aaron P Ragsdale; Alec J Coffman; PingHsun Hsieh; Travis J Struck; Ryan N Gutenkunst
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Differential strengths of positive selection revealed by hitchhiking effects at small physical scales in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Yuh Chwen G Lee; Charles H Langley; David J Begun
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Faster-X adaptive protein evolution in house mice.

Authors:  Athanasios Kousathanas; Daniel L Halligan; Peter D Keightley
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.