CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Estimates of Positive Darwinian Selection Are Inflated by Errors in Sequencing, Annotation, and Alignment Export

Genome Biol Evol, Vol. 1, No. 1. (22 June 2009), pp. 114-118.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

Published estimates of the proportion of positively selected genes (PSGs) in human vary over three orders of magnitude. In mammals, estimates of the proportion of PSGs cover an even wider range of values. We used 2,980 orthologous protein-coding genes from human, chimpanzee, macaque, dog, cow, rat, and mouse as well as an established phylogenetic topology to infer the fraction of PSGs in all seven terminal branches. The inferred fraction of PSGs ranged from 0.9% in human through 17.5% in macaque to 23.3% in dog. We found three factors that influence the fraction of genes that exhibit telltale signs of positive selection: the quality of the sequence, the degree of misannotation, and ambiguities in the multiple sequence alignment. The inferred fraction of PSGs in sequences that are deficient in all three criteria of coverage, annotation, and alignment is 7.2 times higher than that in genes with high trace sequencing coverage, "known" annotation status, and perfect alignment scores. We conclude that some estimates on the prevalence of positive Darwinian selection in the literature may be inflated and should be treated with caution. 10.1093/gbe/evp012


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.