GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136507498


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-STR Mutation rate
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:31:48 -0700
References: <000001c61248$836f1bc0$0100a8c0@BigMem2> <REME20060105192459@alum.mit.edu>


Then "purifying selection" is an obscure way of saying "selection against" a
genotype which codes for an attribute which reduces reproductive success?
If so, why the fancy new term for the downside of natural selection?


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-STR Mutation rate


> John wrote:
>> http://kimura.tau.ac.il/graur/ArticlesPDFs/MBE_PurifSelect.pdf
>
> In the above paper, the term "purifying selection" seems to mean
> "removal of deleterious mutations by ordinary natural selection".
> For example, they write
>
> ... the rate of nonsynonymous substitution is assumed to be
> determined by the join effects of mutation ... and purifying
> selection against deleterious mutations.
>
> and
>
> ... the fraction of deleterious mutations that are subject to
> purifying selection ... is calculated as 1 minus the fraction
> of neutral mutations.
>
> Note that the context is SNP mutations in coding regions, where
> mutations have immediate and obvious consequences (or none, in
> the case of "synonymous" mutations) -- a vastly different realm
> from the Y STR world, where we have a proof by counterexample
> that the existing alleles of the commonly tested loci are not
> deleterious.
>
> John Chandler
>
>
> ==============================
> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: