Literature DB >> 32847814

Background Selection Does Not Mimic the Patterns of Genetic Diversity Produced by Selective Sweeps.

Daniel R Schrider1.   

Abstract

It is increasingly evident that natural selection plays a prominent role in shaping patterns of diversity across the genome. The most commonly studied modes of natural selection are positive selection and negative selection, which refer to directional selection for and against derived mutations, respectively. Positive selection can result in hitchhiking events, in which a beneficial allele rapidly replaces all others in the population, creating a valley of diversity around the selected site along with characteristic skews in allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium among linked neutral polymorphisms. Similarly, negative selection reduces variation not only at selected sites but also at linked sites, a phenomenon called background selection (BGS). Thus, discriminating between these two forces may be difficult, and one might expect efforts to detect hitchhiking to produce an excess of false positives in regions affected by BGS. Here, we examine the similarity between BGS and hitchhiking models via simulation. First, we show that BGS may somewhat resemble hitchhiking in simplistic scenarios in which a region constrained by negative selection is flanked by large stretches of unconstrained sites, echoing previous results. However, this scenario does not mirror the actual spatial arrangement of selected sites across the genome. By performing forward simulations under more realistic scenarios of BGS, modeling the locations of protein-coding and conserved noncoding DNA in real genomes, we show that the spatial patterns of variation produced by BGS rarely mimic those of hitchhiking events. Indeed, BGS is not substantially more likely than neutrality to produce false signatures of hitchhiking. This holds for simulations modeled after both humans and Drosophila, and for several different demographic histories. These results demonstrate that appropriately designed scans for hitchhiking need not consider BGS's impact on false-positive rates. However, we do find evidence that BGS increases the false-negative rate for hitchhiking, an observation that demands further investigation.
Copyright © 2020 by the Genetics Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  background selection; forward simulation; hitchhiking; selective sweeps

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32847814      PMCID: PMC7536861          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.120.303469

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


  100 in total

1.  On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination.

Authors:  G A Watterson
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 1.570

2.  A new test for detecting recent positive selection that is free from the confounding impacts of demography.

Authors:  Haipeng Li
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 16.240

3.  Background selection and FST : Consequences for detecting local adaptation.

Authors:  Remi Matthey-Doret; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  SweepFinder2: increased sensitivity, robustness and flexibility.

Authors:  Michael DeGiorgio; Christian D Huber; Melissa J Hubisz; Ines Hellmann; Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases.

Authors:  M Nei; W H Li
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1979-10       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The age of a rare mutant gene in a large population.

Authors:  T Maruyama
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1974-11       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  The pattern of neutral molecular variation under the background selection model.

Authors:  D Charlesworth; B Charlesworth; M T Morgan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Levels of naturally occurring DNA polymorphism correlate with recombination rates in D. melanogaster.

Authors:  D J Begun; C F Aquadro
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1992-04-09       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Evidence for positive selection in the superoxide dismutase (Sod) region of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  R R Hudson; K Bailey; D Skarecky; J Kwiatowski; F J Ayala
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Soft selective sweeps in complex demographic scenarios.

Authors:  Benjamin A Wilson; Dmitri A Petrov; Philipp W Messer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 4.562

View more
  5 in total

1.  Decreased recent adaptation at human mendelian disease genes as a possible consequence of interference between advantageous and deleterious variants.

Authors:  Chenlu Di; Jesus Murga Moreno; Diego F Salazar-Tortosa; M Elise Lauterbur; David Enard
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Maintenance of Adaptive Dynamics and No Detectable Load in a Range-Edge Outcrossing Plant Population.

Authors:  Margarita Takou; Tuomas Hämälä; Evan M Koch; Kim A Steige; Hannes Dittberner; Levi Yant; Mathieu Genete; Shamil Sunyaev; Vincent Castric; Xavier Vekemans; Outi Savolainen; Juliette de Meaux
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 16.240

3.  Detecting Selection in Multiple Populations by Modeling Ancestral Admixture Components.

Authors:  Jade Yu Cheng; Aaron J Stern; Fernando Racimo; Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 16.240

4.  A spatially aware likelihood test to detect sweeps from haplotype distributions.

Authors:  Michael DeGiorgio; Zachary A Szpiech
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 6.020

5.  An ancient viral epidemic involving host coronavirus interacting genes more than 20,000 years ago in East Asia.

Authors:  Yassine Souilmi; M Elise Lauterbur; Ray Tobler; Christian D Huber; Angad S Johar; Shayli Varasteh Moradi; Wayne A Johnston; Nevan J Krogan; Kirill Alexandrov; David Enard
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 10.834

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.