Effects of Selection at Linked Sites on Patterns of Genetic Variability

Literature Cited

1. Bank C, Foll M, Ferrer-Admetlla A, Ewing G, Jensen JD. 2014. Thinking too positive? Revisiting current methods in population genetic selection inference. Trends Genet 30:540–46
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barton NH. 1979. Gene flow past a cline. Heredity 43:333–39
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barton NH. 2000. Genetic hitchhiking. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 355:1553–62
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bast J, Parker DJ, Dumas Z, Jalvingh KM, Van PT et al. 2018. Consequences of asexuality in natural populations: insights from stick insects. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35:1668–77
   [Google Scholar]
5. Becher H, Jackson BC, Charlesworth B. 2020. Patterns of genetic variability in genomic regions with low rates of recombination. Curr. Biol. 30:94–100
   [Google Scholar]
6. Begun D, Aquadro CF. 1992. Levels of naturally occurring DNA polymorphism correlate with recombination rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 356:519–20
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bengtsson BO 1985. The flow of genes through a genetic barrier. Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith PJ Greenwood, PH Harvey, M Slatkin 31–42 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
8. Berry AJ, Ajioka JW, Kreitman M. 1991. Lack of polymorphism on the Drosophila fourth chromosome resulting from selection. Genetics 129:1111–17
   [Google Scholar]
9. Booker TR, Jackson BC, Keightley PD. 2017. Detecting positive selection in the genome. BMC Biol 15:98
   [Google Scholar]
10. Braverman JM, Hudson RR, Kaplan NL, Langley CH, Stephan W 1995. The hitchhiking effect on the site frequency spectrum of DNA polymorphism. Genetics 140:783–96
    [Google Scholar]
11. Campos JL, Charlesworth B. 2019. The effects on neutral variability of recurrent selective sweeps and background selection. Genetics 212:287–303
    [Google Scholar]
12. Campos JL, Halligan DL, Haddrill PR, Charlesworth B. 2014. The relation between recombination rate and patterns of molecular evolution and variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31:1010–28
    [Google Scholar]
13. Campos JL, Zhao L, Charlesworth B. 2017. Estimating the parameters of background selection and selective sweeps in Drosophila in the presence of gene conversion. PNAS 114:E4762–71
    [Google Scholar]
14. Casillas S, Barbadilla A, Bergman CM. 2007. Purifying selection maintains highly conserved noncoding sequences in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:2222–34
    [Google Scholar]
15. Charlesworth B. 1996. Background selection and patterns of genetic diversity in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. 68:131–50
    [Google Scholar]
16. Charlesworth B. 2009. Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10:195–205
    [Google Scholar]
17. Charlesworth B. 2020a. How good are predictions of the effects of selective sweeps on levels of neutral diversity?. Genetics 216:1217–38
    [Google Scholar]
18. Charlesworth B. 2020b. How long does it take to fix a favorable mutation, and why should we care?. Am. Nat. 195:753–71
    [Google Scholar]
19. Charlesworth B, Betancourt AJ, Kaiser VB, Gordo I. 2010. Genetic recombination and molecular evolution. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 74:177–86
    [Google Scholar]
20. Charlesworth B, Campos JL. 2014. The relations between recombination rate and patterns of molecular evolution and variation in Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Genet. 48:383–403
    [Google Scholar]
21. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. 1997. Rapid fixation of deleterious alleles by Muller's ratchet. Genet. Res. 70:63–73
    [Google Scholar]
22. Charlesworth B, Morgan MT, Charlesworth D. 1993. The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation. Genetics 134:1289–303
    [Google Scholar]
23. Charlesworth B, Nordborg M, Charlesworth D. 1997. The effects of local selection, balanced polymorphism and background selection on equilibrium patterns of genetic diversity in subdivided populations. Genet. Res. 70:155–74
    [Google Scholar]
24. Charlesworth D. 1991. The apparent selection on neutral marker loci in partially inbreeding populations. Genet. Res. 57:159–75
    [Google Scholar]
25. Charlesworth D. 2003. Effects of inbreeding on the genetic diversity of plant populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 358:1051–70
    [Google Scholar]
26. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B, Morgan MT. 1995. The pattern of neutral molecular variation under the background selection model. Genetics 141:1619–32
    [Google Scholar]
27. Chikhi L, Rodríguez W, Grusea S, Santos P, Boitard S, Mazet O. 2018. The IICR (inverse instantaneous coalescence rate) as a summary of genomic diversity: insights into demographic inference and model choice. Heredity 120:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
28. Comeron JM. 2017. Background selection as null hypothesis in population genomics: insights and challenges from Drosophila studies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372:20160471
    [Google Scholar]
29. Comeron JM, Kreitman M. 2002. Population, evolutionary and genomic consequences of interference selection. Genetics 161:389–410
    [Google Scholar]
30. Crisci JL, Poh Y-P, Mahajan S, Jensen JD. 2013. The impact of equilibrium assumptions on tests of selection. Front. Genet. 4:235
    [Google Scholar]
31. Crow JF, Nagylaki T. 1976. The rate of change of a character correlated with fitness. Am. Nat. 110:207–13
    [Google Scholar]
32. Cutter AD, Payseur BA. 2013. Genomic signatures of selection at linked sites: unifying the disparity among species. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14:262–72
    [Google Scholar]
33. Cvijović I, Good BH, Desai MM. 2018. The effect of strong purifying selection on genetic diversity. Genetics 209:1235–78
    [Google Scholar]
34. DeGiorgio M, Huber CD, Hubisz M, Nielsen R. 2016. SweepFinder2: increase in sensitivity, robustness and flexibility. Bioinformatics 32:1895–97
    [Google Scholar]
35. Eldon B, Birkner M, Blath J, Freund F. 2015. Can the site-frequency spectrum distinguish exponential population growth from multiple-merger coalescents?. Genetics 199:841–56
    [Google Scholar]
36. Elyashiv E, Sattah S, Hu TT, Strutovsky A, McVicker G et al. 2016. A genomic map of the effects of linked selection in Drosophila. PLOS Genet 12:e1006130
    [Google Scholar]
37. Ewing GB, Jensen JD. 2016. The consequences of not accounting for background selection in demographic inference. Mol. Ecol. 25:135–41
    [Google Scholar]
38. Excoffier L, Dupanloup I, Huerta-Saánchez E, Sousa V, Foll M. 2013. Robust demographic inference from genomic and SNP data. PLOS Genet 9:e1003905
    [Google Scholar]
39. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD 2009. Estimating the rate of adaptive mutations in the presence of slightly deleterious mutations and population size change. Mol. Biol. Evol. 26:2097–108
    [Google Scholar]
40. Fay JC, Wu CI. 2000. Hitchhiking under positive Darwinian selection. Genetics 155:1405–13
    [Google Scholar]
41. Felsenstein J. 1974. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78:737–56
    [Google Scholar]
42. Ferrer-Admetlla A, Liang M, Korneliussen T, Nielsen R. 2014. On detecting incomplete soft or hard selective sweeps using haplotype structure. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31:1275–91
    [Google Scholar]
43. Fijarczyk A, Babik W. 2015. Detecting balancing selection in genomes: limits and prospects. Mol. Ecol. 24:3529–45
    [Google Scholar]
44. Foll M, Poh Y-P, Renzette N, Ferrer-Admetlla A, Bank C et al. 2014. Influenza virus drug resistance: a time-sampled population genetics perspective. PLOS Genet 10:e1004185
    [Google Scholar]
45. Galtier N, Depaulis F, Barton NH. 2000. Detecting bottlenecks and selective sweeps from DNA sequence polymorphism. Genetics 155:981–87
    [Google Scholar]
46. Galtier N, Rousselle M. 2020. How much does N_e vary among species?. Genetics 216:559–72
    [Google Scholar]
47. Garud NR, Messer PW, Buszbas EO, Petrov DA. 2015. Recent selective sweeps in North American Drosophila melanogaster show signatures of soft sweeps. PLOS Genet 11:e1005004
    [Google Scholar]
48. Gilbert KJ, Pouyet F, Excoffier L, Peischl S. 2020. Transition from background selection to associative overdominance promotes diversity in regions of low recombination. Curr. Biol. 30:101–7
    [Google Scholar]
49. Good BH, Walczak AM, Neher RA, Desai MM. 2014. Genetic diversity in the interference selection limit. PLOS Genet 10:e1004222
    [Google Scholar]
50. Haldane JBS. 1924. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part I. Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23:19–41
    [Google Scholar]
51. Harris RB, Jensen JD. 2020. Considering genome scans for selection as coalescent model choice. Genome Biol. Evol. 12:871–77
    [Google Scholar]
52. Harris RB, Sackman A, Jensen JD. 2018. On the unfounded enthusiasm for soft selective sweeps II: examining recent evidence from humans, flies, and viruses. PLOS Genet 14:e1007859
    [Google Scholar]
53. Hartfield M, Bataillon T. 2020. Selective sweeps under dominance and inbreeding. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 10:1063–75
    [Google Scholar]
54. Hermisson J, Pennings PS. 2005. Soft sweeps: molecular population genetics of adaptation from standing genetic variation. Genetics 169:2335–52
    [Google Scholar]
55. Hermisson J, Pennings PS. 2017. Soft sweeps and beyond: understanding the patterns and probabilities of selection footprints under rapid adaptation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8:700–16
    [Google Scholar]
56. Hill WG, Robertson A. 1966. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 8:269–94
    [Google Scholar]
57. Hoban S, Kelley JL, Lotterhos KE, Antolin MF, Bradburd G et al. 2016. Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions. Am. Nat. 188:379–97
    [Google Scholar]
58. Hudson RR. 1990. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:1–45
    [Google Scholar]
59. Hudson RR, Kaplan NL 1994. Gene trees with background selection. Non-Neutral Evolution: Theories and Molecular Data ed. B Golding 140–53 London: Chapman & Hall
    [Google Scholar]
60. Hudson RR, Kaplan NL. 1995. Deleterious background selection with recombination. Genetics 141:1605–17
    [Google Scholar]
61. Irwin KK, Matuszewski S, Vuilleumier S, Ormond L, Shim H et al. 2016. On the importance of skewed offspring distributions and background selection in virus population genetics. Heredity 117:393–99
    [Google Scholar]
62. Jain K. 2008. Loss of least-loaded class in asexual populations due to drift and epistasis. Genetics 179:2125–34
    [Google Scholar]
63. Jensen JD. 2014. On the unfounded enthusiasm for soft selective sweeps. Nat. Commun. 5:5281
    [Google Scholar]
64. Jensen JD, Kim Y, Bauer DuMont V, Aquadro CF, Bustamante CD 2005. Distinguishing between selective sweeps and demography using DNA polymorphism data. Genetics 170:1401–10
    [Google Scholar]
65. Jensen JD, Kim Y, Bustamante CD, Aquadro CF. 2007. On the utility of linkage disequilibrium as a statistic for identifying targets of positive selection in nonequilibrium populations. Genetics 176:2371–79
    [Google Scholar]
66. Johri P, Charlesworth B, Howell EK, Lynch M, Jensen JD 2021a. Revisiting the notion of deleterious sweeps. Genetics In press. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyab094
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
67. Johri P, Charlesworth B, Jensen JD. 2020. Toward an evolutionarily appropriate null model: jointly inferring demography and purifying selection. Genetics 215:173–92
    [Google Scholar]
68. Johri P, Riall K, Becher H, Excoffier L, Charlesworth B, Jensen JD. 2021b. The impact of purifying and background selection on the inference of population history: problems and prospects. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38:2986–3003
    [Google Scholar]
69. Kaiser VB, Charlesworth B. 2009. The effects of deleterious mutations on evolution in non-recombining genomes. Trends Genet. 25:9–12
    [Google Scholar]
70. Kaiser VB, Charlesworth B. 2010. Muller's ratchet and the degeneration of the Drosophila miranda neo-Y chromosome. Genetics 185:339–48
    [Google Scholar]
71. Kaplan NL, Hudson RR, Langley CH. 1989. The “hitch-hiking” effect revisited. Genetics 123:887–99
    [Google Scholar]
72. Kim Y, Nielsen R. 2004. Linkage disequilibrium as a signature of selective sweeps. Genetics 167:1513–24
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kim Y, Stephan W 2000. Joint effects of genetic hitchhiking and background selection on neutral variation. Genetics 155:1415–27
    [Google Scholar]
74. Kim Y, Stephan W 2002. Detecting a local signature of genetic hitchhiking along a recombining chromosome. Genetics 160:765–77
    [Google Scholar]
75. Kimura M. 1971. Theoretical foundations of population genetics at the molecular level. Theor. . Popul. Biol. 2:174–208
    [Google Scholar]
76. Kimura M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
77. Kousathanas A, Keightley PD. 2013. A comparison of models to infer the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Genetics 193:1197–208
    [Google Scholar]
78. Latter BDH. 1998. Mutant alleles of small effect are primarily responsible for the loss of fitness with slow inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 148:1143–58
    [Google Scholar]
79. Li H, Durbin R. 2011. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475:493–96
    [Google Scholar]
80. Machado HE, Lawrie DS, Petrov DA. 2020. Pervasive strong selection at the level of codon usage bias in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 214:511–28
    [Google Scholar]
81. Mafessoni F, Lachmann D. 2015. Selective strolls: Fixation and extinction in diploids are slower for weakly selected mutations than for neutral ones. Genetics 201:1581–89
    [Google Scholar]
82. Maruyama T, Kimura M. 1974. A note on the speed of gene frequency changes in reverse directions in a finite population. Evolution 28:161–63
    [Google Scholar]
83. Matuszewski S, Hildebrandt ME, Achaz G, Jensen JD. 2018. Coalescent processes with skewed offspring distributions and nonequilibrium demography. Genetics 208:323–38
    [Google Scholar]
84. Maynard Smith J, Haigh J 1974. The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. Genet. Res. 23:23–35
    [Google Scholar]
85. McFarland CD, Korolev KS, Kryukov GV, Sunyaev SR, Mirny LA. 2013. Impact of deleterious passenger mutations on cancer progression. PNAS 110:2910–15
    [Google Scholar]
86. McVean G. 2007. The structure of linkage disequilibrium around a selective sweep. Genetics 175:1395–406
    [Google Scholar]
87. McVicker G, Gordon D, Davis C, Green P. 2009. Widespread genomic signatures of natural selection in hominid evolution. PLOS Genet 5:e1000471
    [Google Scholar]
88. Messer PW, Petrov DA. 2013. Frequent adaptation and the McDonald-Kreitman test. PNAS 110:8615–20
    [Google Scholar]
89. Muller HJ. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutat. Res. 1:2–9
    [Google Scholar]
90. Nicolaisen LE, Desai M. 2013. Distortions in genealogies due to purifying selection and recombination. Genetics 195:221–30
    [Google Scholar]
91. Nielsen R, Williamson S, Kim Y, Hubisz MJ, Clark AG, Bustamante CD. 2005. Genomic scans for selective sweeps using SNP data. Genome Res 15:1566–75
    [Google Scholar]
92. Nordborg M, Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. 1996. The effect of recombination on background selection. Genet. Res. 67:159–74
    [Google Scholar]
93. Ohta T. 1971. Associative overdominance caused by linked detrimental mutations. Genet. Res. 18:277–86
    [Google Scholar]
94. Orr HA, Betancourt AJ. 2001. Haldane's sieve and adaptation from the standing genetic variation. Genetics 157:875–84
    [Google Scholar]
95. Palsson S, Pamilo P. 1999. The effects of deleterious mutations on linked neutral variation in small populations. Genetics 153:475–83
    [Google Scholar]
96. Parmley JL, Hurst LD. 2007. How do synonymous mutations affect fitness?. Bioessays 29:515–19
    [Google Scholar]
97. Pavlidis P, Živkovic D, Stamatakis A, Alachiotis N. 2013. SweeD: likelihood-based detection of selective sweeps in thousands of genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:2224–34
    [Google Scholar]
98. Pennings PS, Hermisson J. 2006. Soft sweeps II—molecular population genetics of adaptation from recurrent mutation or migration. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23:1076–84
    [Google Scholar]
99. Poh Y-P, Domingues V, Hoekstra HE, Jensen JD. 2014. On the prospect of identifying adaptive loci in recently bottlenecked populations. PLOS ONE 9:e110579
    [Google Scholar]
100. Pouyet F, Aeschbacher S, Thiery A, Excoffier L. 2018. Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife 7:e36317
     [Google Scholar]
101. Price GR. 1970. Selection and covariance. Nature 227:520–21
     [Google Scholar]
102. Przeworski M. 2002. The signature of positive selection at randomly chosen loci. Genetics 160:1179–89
     [Google Scholar]
103. Robertson A. 1968. The spectrum of genetic variation. Population Biology and Evolution, Proceedings of the International Symposium, June 7–9, 1967, Syracuse RC Lewontin 5–16 Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
104. Sackman AM, Harris RB, Jensen JD. 2019. Inferring demography and selection in organisms characterized by skewed offspring distributions. Genetics 211:1019–28
     [Google Scholar]
105. Santiago E, Caballero A. 1995. Effective size of populations under selection. Genetics 139:1013–30
     [Google Scholar]
106. Santiago E, Caballero A. 1998. Effective size and polymorphism of linked neutral loci in populations under selection. Genetics 149:2105–17
     [Google Scholar]
107. Sattah S, Elyashiv E, Kolodny O, Rinott Y, Sella G 2011. Pervasive adaptive protein evolution apparent in diversity patterns around amino acid substitutions in Drosophila simulans. PLOS Genet 7:e1001302
     [Google Scholar]
108. Schiffels S, Durbin R. 2014. Inferring human population size and separation history from multiple genome sequences. Nat. Genet. 46:919–25
     [Google Scholar]
109. Schrider DR, Kern AD. 2016. S/HIC: robust identification of soft and hard sweeps using machine learning. PLOS Genet 12:e1005928
     [Google Scholar]
110. Schrider DR, Kern AD. 2017. Soft sweeps are the dominant mode of adaptation in the human genome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34:1863–77
     [Google Scholar]
111. Schrider DR, Mendes F, Hahn MW, Kern AD. 2015. Soft shoulders ahead: Spurious signatures of soft and partial sweeps result from linked hard sweeps. Genetics 200:267–84
     [Google Scholar]
112. Söderberg RJ, Berg OG. 2007. Mutational interference and the progression of Muller's ratchet when mutations have a broad range of deleterious effects. Genetics 177:971–86
     [Google Scholar]
113. Stephan W. 2019. Selective sweeps. Genetics 211:5–13
     [Google Scholar]
114. Stephan W, Song YS, Langley CH. 2006. The hitchhiking effect on linkage disequilibrium between linked neutral loci. Genetics 172:2647–63
     [Google Scholar]
115. Stephan W, Wiehe THE, Lenz MW. 1992. The effect of strongly selected substitutions on neutral polymorphism: analytical results based on diffusion theory. Theor. Popul. Biol. 41:237–54
     [Google Scholar]
116. Tajima F. 1990. Relationship between DNA polymorphism and fixation time. Genetics 125:447–54
     [Google Scholar]
117. Tellier A, Lemaire C. 2014. Coalescence 2.0: a multiple branching of recent theoretical developments and their applications. Mol. Ecol. 23:2637–52
     [Google Scholar]
118. Teshima KM, Coop G, Przeworski M. 2006. How reliable are empirical genome scans for selective sweeps?. Genome Res 16:702–12
     [Google Scholar]
119. Thornton KR, Jensen JD. 2007. Controlling the false-positive rate in multilocus genome scans for selection. Genetics 175:737–50
     [Google Scholar]
120. Wakeley J. 2008. Coalescent Theory: An Introduction Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts & Co.
121. Wiehe THE, Stephan W. 1993. Analysis of a genetic hitchhiking model and its application to DNA polymorphism data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:842–54
     [Google Scholar]
122. Xia Q, Guo Y, Zheng Z, Li D, Xuan Z et al. 2009. Complete resequencing of 40 genomes reveals domestication events and genes in silkworm (Bombyx). Science 326:433–36
     [Google Scholar]
123. Zeng K. 2013. A coalescent model of background selection with recombination, demography and variation in selection coefficients. Heredity 110:363–71
     [Google Scholar]
124. Zhao L, Charlesworth B. 2016. Resolving the conflict between associative overdominance and background selection. Genetics 203:1315–34
     [Google Scholar]