SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Kimberly J. Gilbert

Publications and source records attributed to Kimberly J. Gilbert.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Towards an improved understanding of molecular evolution: the relative roles of selection, drift, and everything in between

A major goal of molecular evolutionary biology is to identify loci or regions of the genome under selection versus those evolving in a neutral manner. Correct identification allows accurate inference of the evolutionary process and thus comprehension of historical and contemporary processes driving phenotypic change and adaptation. A fundamental difficulty lies in distinguishing sites targeted by selection from both sites linked to these targets and sites fully independent of selection. These three categories of sites necessitate attention in light of the debate over the relative importance of selection versus neutrality and the neutral theory. Modern genomic insights have proved that complex processes such as linkage, demography, and biased gene conversion complicate our understanding of the role of neutral versus selective processes in evolution. In this perspective, we first highlight the importance of the genomic and (a)biotic context of new mutations to identify the targets of natural selection. We then present mechanisms that may constrain the evolution of genomes and bias the inference of selection. We discuss these mechanisms within the two critical levels that they occur: the population level and the molecular level. We highlight that they should be taken into account to correctly distinguish sites across the genome subject to selective or non-selective forces and stress that a major current field-wide goal is to quantify the absolute importance of these mechanisms.

q-bio.PE

Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data

The data underlying scientific papers should be accessible to researchers both now and in the future, but how best can we ensure that these data are available? Here we examine the effectiveness of four approaches to data archiving: no stated archiving policy, recommending (but not requiring) archiving, and two versions of mandating data deposition at acceptance. We control for differences between data types by trying to obtain data from papers that use a single, widespread population genetic analysis, STRUCTURE. At one extreme, we found that mandated data archiving policies that require the inclusion of a data availability statement in the manuscript improve the odds of finding the data online almost a thousand-fold compared to having no policy. However, archiving rates at journals with less stringent policies were only very slightly higher than those with no policy at all. At one extreme, we found that mandated data archiving policies that require the inclusion of a data availability statement in the manuscript improve the odds of finding the data online almost a thousand fold compared to having no policy. However, archiving rates at journals with less stringent policies were only very slightly higher than those with no policy at all. We also assessed the effectiveness of asking for data directly from authors and obtained over half of the requested datasets, albeit with about 8 days delay and some disagreement with authors. Given the long term benefits of data accessibility to the academic community, we believe that journal based mandatory data archiving policies and mandatory data availability statements should be more widely adopted.

cs.DL