Genome Biology and Evolution

Genome Biology and Evolution Advance Access originally published online on September 2, 2009
Genome Biology and Evolution (2009) Vol. 2009:320; doi:10.1093/gbe/evp031 published on September 18, 2009

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) OA All Versions of this Article: 2009/0/320    most recent evp031v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Email alerts Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Jensen, J. D. PubMed Articles by Jensen, J. D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

© 2009 The Authors
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

On Reconciling Single and Recurrent Hitchhiking Models

Jeffrey D. Jensen

Program in Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School

E-mail: jeffrey.jensen{at}umassmed.edu.

	Abstract

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
A major focus of modern population genetics involves using polymorphism data in order to identify regions impacted by recent positive selection (so-called genomic scans). Recently, methodology has been proposed not to identify individual loci, but rather to quantify genomic recurrent hitchhiking (RHH) parameters using this same type of polymorphism data. I here examine to what extent genomic scans for adaptively important loci may be informed by recently estimated RHH parameters (and vice versa). I find that published results are largely incompatible with one another, with approximately an order of magnitude more sweeps being empirically identified than would be predicted under RHH estimates. Results demonstrate that making this connection between SHH and RHH models is crucial for a more complete and accurate characterization of adaptive evolution.

Keywords: genetic hitchhiking, recurrent selection, selective sweeps, genomic scans

Accepted August 28, 2009

	Introduction

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
One of the most popular approaches for identifying loci recently impacted by positive selection is known as "hitchhiking mapping" (e.g., Harr et al. 2002). Broadly speaking, this approach involves scanning across a large number of regions in order to determine the average levels of variability that are characteristic of the genomic environment. Regions that show extreme values and fall in the tail of this observed empirical distribution are then subject to further investigation via resequencing—with the aim being the discernment of locus-specific adaptive effects from neutral genome-wide patterns of variation (e.g., Harr et al. 2002; Glinka et al. 2003; Tenaillon et al. 2004; Carlson et al. 2005; Haddrill et al. 2005; Nielsen 2005; Ometto et al. 2005; Williamson et al. 2005; Wright et al. 2005; Kelley et al. 2006).

Problematically, major assumptions about the underlying adaptive substitutions responsible for these patterns are made in such attempts to identify selected loci. Namely, as these scans rely on the impact of beneficial mutations upon closely linked neutral variability (i.e., the genetic hitchhiking effect; Maynard Smith and Haigh 1974), it is implicitly assumed that selection is strong enough to impact large genomic regions. Simultaneously, it is assumed that these selective events occur rarely enough that recently impacted regions will indeed uniquely reside in the tails of genomic distributions, and yet frequently enough to be detectable from patterns of variation. This suggests that the assumptions underlying genomic scans may correspond to a very specific parameter space. This disconnect between hitchhiking mapping and the true underlying rates and strengths of beneficial mutations (known as "recurrent hitchhiking" [RHH]) owes to the fact that the former relies upon a model of a single hitchhiking (SHH) event, in which a single adaptive fixation is assumed to have occurred immediately prior to sampling, whereas the latter considers a constant input of beneficial mutations, occurring at a given rate.

The first point of comparison between these two models comes from Wiehe and Stephan (1993), who predicted the expected level of reduction in variation at linked neutral sites under an RHH model, demonstrating that for s = constant (where s is the selection coefficient, and is the rate of adaptive substitutions per site per generation), the mean reduction is identical among models. This result implies that regions of reduced variation may be consistent with models of rarely occurring but strongly advantageous, or commonly occurring but weakly advantageous, mutations. Recently, attempts have been made to estimate RHH parameters (i.e., s and ) directly from the same multilocus and genomic polymorphism data used in genomic scans (e.g., Kim 2006; Li and Stephan 2006; Andolfatto 2007; Macpherson et al. 2007; Jensen, Thornton, and Andolfatto 2008; and recently reviewed by Sella et al. 2009), in order to distinguish between these scenarios. Thus, rather than attempting to identify individual loci, these estimators attempt to quantify the average genomic strength and rate of adaptive evolution. As these recent estimators are fundamentally informed by the same underlying parameters as the hitchhiking mapping approach implemented in genomic scans, I here ask whether published results from both approaches are consistent with one another.

	Relating Models of RHH to the Identification of Adaptive Loci

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
The ability to distinguish between models of weak and strong selection has significant implications for our ability to detect adaptively important regions of the genome. As shown in table 1 for a hypothetical 1-Mb region, the expected number of potentially identifiable sweeps differs strongly between models. For example, a 5% average reduction in variation implies that selection tends to be either weak or infrequent. Thus, strong selection (i.e., s > 0.01) would occur so rarely as to never be detectable, on average, from patterns of polymorphism. And although weaker selection occurs with an appreciable frequency, such that it may be detectable when scanning large genomic regions, there are still few sweeps, each resulting in a relatively small genomic impact. As such, any given marker would have an approximately 0.2% chance of falling within a swept region, necessitating an extremely dense screen in order to identify adaptively important loci.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1 Details of Recurrent Sweeps under Four Selection Coefficients and Four Levels of Reduction for a 1-Mb Region

 
In the other extreme, models positing a 90% reduction in variation are expected to have experienced a large number of recent sweeps at any given time of sampling. As such, 24% of markers may be linked to recent fixations. Although genomic scan studies rely on the premise that selected loci will appear as outliers when compared against the great majority of other (presumed neutral) loci, this result suggests that hitchhiked loci would effectively be compared with one another, upsetting the fundamental assumption of the approach, implying that in this RHH parameter space the vast majority of selected loci may be overlooked (Kelley et al. 2006; Sabeti et al. 2006; Teshima et al. 2006; Thornton and Jensen 2007). Under such a scenario, the meaning of outlier loci becomes unclear, as selected loci would comprise a large proportion of the empirical distribution. Although such strong reductions seem extreme, this scenario may be relevant in many recently domesticated species, which have experienced recent bouts of strong artificial selection (e.g., Wright and Gaut 2005; Wright et al. 2005).

Thus, whether selection is common or rare, the standard assumption that the loci in the 5% tail of an empirical distribution represent swept regions corresponds to an extremely specific assumption regarding the reduction in variation owing to hitchhiking, and thus also about the true underlying and unknown value of the joint parameter s. For the parameters examined in table 1 for instance, the reduction in variation owing to hitchhiking must be 70%, in order for standard genomic scan assumptions to be met.

	Comparing Published RHH and SHH Results

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
In light of these calculations, I consider a number of recently published genomic scan studies (Harr et al. 2002; Glinka et al. 2003; Bauer DuMont and Aquadro 2005; Jensen et al. 2007). Although there is an extremely large literature utilizing empirical genomic scans across organisms (recently reviewed by Thornton et al. 2007 and Akey 2009), these particular data sets have been chosen in order to minimize, as much as possible, differences in estimates owing to species- or population-based differences. As such, all the considered studies have focused on X-linked regions in derived populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Also common among all studies are the site frequency outlier–based methods of detection used to identify swept regions.

For comparison, these genomic scans are considered against recent estimates of RHH parameters (Li and Stephan 2006; Andolfatto 2007; Macpherson et al. 2007; Jensen, Thornton, and Andolfatto 2008). These published estimators have a number of important differences from one another, in both statistical framework (likelihood or Bayesian) and the type of data utilized (polymorphism or divergence). Despite these differences, and the fact that these studies estimate drastically different RHH parameter values (with estimated mean selection coefficients ranging from 0.01 to 0.00001), the mean reduction in variation is similarly estimated to be 20% by both Macpherson et al. (2007) and Andolfatto (2007). Li and Stephan (2006) and Jensen, Thornton, and Andolfatto (2008) estimate an 50% reduction. As these numbers represent either maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori estimates, they are associated with measures of uncertainty. Considering the 95% confidence intervals across all studies, the minimum and maximum published estimates of reductions in variation owing to RHH are found to range from 14% to 54%, respectively.

As in table 1, it is possible to calculate the expected number of sweeps occurring within these empirically scanned regions for given values of s and (table 2). For example, for the RHH values estimated by Andolfatto (2007), one may expect 3,060 sweeps of s = 0.00001 to have occurred within the last 0.1 4N generations across the 850-kb region examined by Harr et al. (2002). Despite estimating the same 20% reduction in genomic variation owing to RHH as Andolfatto (2007), Macpherson et al. (2007) estimate a much stronger s (=0.01), suggesting approximately three detectable sweeps on average across a region of this size. Given their relative strengths, both RHH estimators suggest that approximately 0.7% of markers should be impacted by a recent sweep. Using an SHH-based approach, Harr et al. (2002) identify 7% of their markers as being swept, and the combined scans of Bauer DuMont and Aquadro (2005) and Jensen et al. (2007), as well as Glinka et al. (2003), identify 12% of their markers as swept. Thus, the number of putatively swept markers identified empirically using SHH models far exceeds published RHH estimates, with roughly an order of magnitude more sweeps being detected than would be predicted (table 2).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2 Empirical Genomic Scan Results Compared with Expectations under Estimated RHH Models for Drosophila

 
Viewing these results graphically, figure 1 plots the reduction in genomic variation against the corresponding fraction of recently swept genomic regions, for both RHH- and SHH-based estimates. For genomic scan studies (grouped as "SHH model"), the expected reduction in variation is back-calculated based upon the empirically observed fraction of loci swept (i.e., what level of reduction is necessary in order for the identified number of loci to have experienced a sweep within the last 0.1 4N generations). Conversely, for the RHH estimators (grouped as "RHH model"), the expected fraction of loci swept is calculated from the estimated reduction in variation (i.e., for the estimated rate, how many sweeps will have occurred within the last 0.1 4N generations). The details of both calculations are given in table 2. As shown, RHH estimates as a whole suggest a less substantial reduction in variation, and thus a smaller fraction of swept loci. Interestingly, estimates strongly group by model—despite large differences among the estimators with regards to the type of data used, summary statistics utilized, and statistical framework—suggesting possible systematic biases in estimation under one, or possibly both, SHH model– and RHH model–based approaches.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PowerPoint slide]   FIG. 1.— A comparison of RHH- and SHH-based results. As shown, RHH- and SHH-based analyses suggest dramatically different patterns, with the latter detecting a far greater number of swept loci than would be predicted under RHH estimation, thereby suggesting a greater reduction in genomic variation due to selection. The vertical dotted line indicates the point at which the common genomic scan assumptions would be met (i.e., the 5% tail of markers are swept). Assuming that recently selected loci will indeed enrich the tails of genomic distributions, this demonstrates that under RHH-based estimation the 5% tail would primarily contain false positives. Conversely, if SHH-based estimates are correct, the majority of positively selected loci would be missed using this cut-off. Points are taken from the four RHH- and three SHH-based studies presented in table 2.

 

	Evaluating Possible Explanations for the Observed SHH–RHH Discrepancy

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
One possible explanation for the discrepancy in SHH model– and RHH model–based analyses is that the true reduction in variation due to hitchhiking in D. melanogaster may be much more severe—a genomic reduction in variation of 79% is necessary in order to accommodate the number of empirically identified sweep regions, compared with the maximum published RHH estimate of 50%—and thus that existing RHH estimators are greatly underestimating the rate of adaptive evolution. Alternatively, the majority of the loci identified in genomic scans may be false positives. Recent studies have suggested that both demographic perturbations (e.g., Nielsen 2001; Przeworski 2002; Jensen et al. 2005; Nielsen et al. 2007) and ascertainment biases (Teshima et al. 2006; Thornton and Jensen 2007) likely contribute to a high rate of false inferences of selection in genomic scans. Along with this, it is additionally important to note that the expected number of sweeps in these calculations is not tantamount to the expected number of "identifiable" sweeps, as test statistics do not have perfect power. For example, examining the performance of three of the most common summary statistics (D [Tajima 1989], H [Fay and Wu 2000], and the composite likelihood ratio test [Kim and Stephan 2002]) across a wide range of RHH parameters, Jensen, Thornton, and Aquadro (2008) found power to be less than 20% for RHH models of weak selection, and rarely in excess of 50% even under models of strong selection. As shown in figure 2, these factors may actually predict a pattern that is opposite to that which is observed—even if demography is properly modeled, fewer sweeps should be identified than have occurred, owing to this imperfect power. Thus, empirical observations appear more consistent with the scenario in which there is a large false-positive rate associated with genomic scans for selection, consistent with previous results (Teshima et al. 2006; Thornton and Jensen 2007).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PowerPoint slide]   FIG. 2.— A simulated comparison of the impact of demography on the identification of selected loci in genomic scans. The demographic model is the out-of-Africa bottleneck estimated for D. melanogaster (Thornton and Andolfatto 2006). For each point, one thousand 100 unlinked-locus data sets (with each locus being of size 1 kb) were simulated in which some fraction of the loci have experienced a recent selective sweep (value given on the x axis). For example, a value of 0.05 corresponds to a model in which 5 of 100 of the loci in each simulated data set have experienced a recent selective fixation. The selection coefficient is fixed at s = 0.01, and the age of the sweep is drawn from a uniform (0, 0.1) in units of 4N generations for each selected locus. The statistic utilized is the composite likelihood ratio test of Kim and Stephan (2002). The dotted line indicates the scenario in which selected loci are perfectly identifiable. The gray line gives the performance of the statistic under common usage—in which the null model is equilibrium neutrality. As shown, there is a tremendous false-positive rate associated with this implementation of hitchhiking mapping. The black line gives the performance when the null is the true underlying demographic model. Although this greatly reduces the false-positive rate, owing to the imperfect power of the test statistic, only roughly half of selected loci are being identified.

 
Other possibilities exist as well. The impact of violations of both a constant-rate assumption on both SHH- and RHH-based approaches, and particularly systematic increases or decreases in the rate of adaptation, as well as the assumption that selection is largely acting only on new mutations (as opposed to segregating variation), remain as areas in need of further investigation. Additionally, under RHH models in which variation is strongly reduced, the approximations of Kaplan et al. (1989) and Stephan et al. (1992) are violated, owing to overlapping sweep patterns (Przeworski 2002). The impact of such a model on both SHH- and RHH-based estimation remains to be seen.

	Conclusions

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
Comparison of a number of published studies in D. melanogaster suggests a lack of correspondence between SHH model– and RHH model–based analyses. Specifically, genomic scan results imply a much higher rate of adaptation, and thus a far greater level of reduction in genomic variation (79% reduction, whereas the mean RHH estimate 35%). Given the significant differences among RHH estimators particularly, this result may suggest systematic biases associated with the methodologies themselves.

Although simulation results are suggestive of possible biases that may be inflating the number of loci identified in genomic scans, better disentangling these discrepancies has major implications. As RHH parameter estimates continue to come in to focus for natural populations of interest, it may become evident that searching for specific adaptive loci may be a difficult endeavor, owing to long expected waiting times between adaptive fixations. Alternatively, as putatively swept loci identified in genomic scans become functionally verified, it may appear more likely the case that existing RHH estimators are underestimating the true rate. Regardless of the species or population under consideration, these results highlight the need for future genomic studies to simultaneously consider and reconcile both classes of analyses in order to gain the most comprehensive and accurate understanding of the recent adaptive history of natural populations and suggest that SHH model– and RHH model–based approaches may indeed inform one another.

	Acknowledgements

 
I thank Peter Andolfatto, Chip Aquadro, Doris Bachtrog, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Bret Payseur, Nadia Singh, Kevin Thornton, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and discussion.

	Notes

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 
Brandon Gaut, Associate Editor

	References

Top Notes Abstract Introduction Relating Models of RHH... Comparing Published RHH and... Evaluating Possible Explanations... Conclusions References

 

Akey JM. Constructing genomic maps of positive selection in humans: where do we go from here? Genome Res (2009) 19:711–722.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Andolfatto P, Przeworski M. Regions of lower crossing over harbor more rare variants in African populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics (2001) 158:657–665.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Andolfatto P. Hitchhiking effects of recurrent beneficial amino acid substitutions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Res (2007) 17:1755–1762.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bauer DuMont V, Aquadro CF. Multiple signatures of positive selection downstream of notch on the X chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics (2005) 171:639–653.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Carlson CS, et al. Genomic regions exhibiting positive selection identified from dense genotype data. Genome Res (2005) 15:1553–1565.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Charlesworth B. Background selection and patterns of genetic diversity in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res (1996) 68:131–149.[Web of Science][Medline]

Fay J, Wu C-I. Hitchhiking under positive Darwinian selection. Genetics (2000) 155:1405–1413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Glinka SL, Ometto L, Mousset S, Stephan W, De Lorenzo D. Demography and natural selection have shaped genetic variation in Drosophila melanogaster: a multi-locus approach. Genetics (2003) 165:1269–1278.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Haddrill PR, Thornton KR, Charlesworth B, Andolfatto P. Multilocus patterns of nucleotide variability and the demographic and selection history of Drosophila melanogaster populations. Genome Res (2005) 15:790–799.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Harr B, Kauer M, Schlotterer C. Hitchhiking mapping: a population-based fine-mapping strategy for adaptive mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2002) 99:12949–12954.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Jensen JD, Bauer DuMont V, Ashmore AB, Gutierrez A, Aquadro CF. Patterns of variability and divergence at the diminutive gene region of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics (2007) 177:832–840.

Jensen JD, Kim Y, Bauer DuMont V, Aquadro CF, Bustamante CD. Distinguishing between selective sweeps and demography using DNA polymorphism data. Genetics (2005) 170:1401–1410.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Jensen JD, Thornton KR, Andolfatto P. An approximate Bayesian estimator suggests strong recurrent selective sweeps in Drosophila. PLoS Genet (2008) 4:e1000198.[CrossRef][Medline]

Jensen JD, Thornton KR, Aquadro CF. Inferring selection in partially sequenced regions. Mol Biol Evol (2008) 25:438–446.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kaplan NL, Hudson RR, Langley CH. The ‘hitchhiking effect’ revisited. Genetics (1989) 123:887–899.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kelley JL, Madeoy J, Calhoun JC, Swanson W, Akey JM. Genomic signatures of positive selection in humans and the limits of outlier approaches. Genome Res (2006) 16:980–989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kim Y. Allele frequency distribution under recurrent selective sweeps. Genetics (2006) 172:1967–1978.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kim Y, Stephan W. Detecting a local signature of genetic hitchhiking along a recombining chromosomes. Genetics (2002) 160:765–777.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Li H, Stephan W. Inferring the demographic history and rate of adaptive substitutions in Drosophila. PLoS Genet (2006) 2:e166.[CrossRef][Medline]

Macpherson JM, Sella G, Davis JC, Petrov DA. Genome-wide spatial correspondence between nonsynonymous divergence and neutral polymorphism reveals extensive adaptation in Drosophila. Genetics (2007) 177:2083–2099.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Maynard Smith JM, Haigh J. The hitchhiking effect of a favourable gene. Genet Res (1974) 23:23–35.[Web of Science][Medline]

Nielsen R. Statistical tests of selective neutrality in the age of genomics. Heredity (2001) 86:641–647.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Nielsen R. Molecular signatures of natural selection. Annu Rev Genet (2005) 39:197–218.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Nielsen RI, Hellmann M, Hubisz M, Bustamante CD, Clark AG. Recent and ongoing selection in the human genome. Nat Rev Genet (2007) 8:857–868.[Medline]

Ometto L, Glinka S, De Lorenzo D, Stephan W. Genomic scans for selective sweeps using SNP data. Mol Biol Evol (2005) 22:2119–2130.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Przeworski M. The signature of positive selection at randomly chosen loci. Genetics (2002) 160:265–279.

Sabeti PC, et al. Positive natural selection in the human lineage. Science (2006) 312:1614–1620.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Sella G, Petrov DA, Przeworski M, Andolfatto P. Pervasive natural selection in the Drosophila genome. PLoS Genet (2009) 5:e1000495.[CrossRef][Medline]

Stephan W, Wiehe THE, Lenz MW. The effect of strongly selected substitutions on neutral polymorphism: analytical results based on diffusion theory. Theor Popul Biol (1992) 41:237–254.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

Tajima F. Statistical methods for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis. Genetics (1989) 123:437–460.

Tenaillon ML, U'Ren J, Tenaillon O, Gaut BS. Selection versus demography: a multilocus investigation of the domestication process in maize. Mol Biol Evol (2004) 21:1214–1225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Teshima KM, Coop G, Przeworski M. How reliable are empirical genomic scans for selective sweeps? Genome Res (2006) 16:702–712.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Thornton KR, Andolfatto P. Approximate Bayesian inference reveals evidence for a recent, severe bottleneck in a Netherlands population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics (2006) 172:1607–1619.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Thornton KR, Jensen JD. Controlling the false positive rate in multilocus genome scans for selection. Genetics (2007) 175:737–750.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Thornton KR, Jensen JD, Becquet C, Andolfatto P. Progress and prospects in mapping recent selection in the genome. Heredity (2007) 98:340–348.[Web of Science][Medline]

Wiehe TH, Stephan W. Analysis of a genetic hitchhiking model and its application to DNA polymorphism data from Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol (1993) 10:842–854.[Abstract]

Williamson SH, et al. Simultaneous inference of selection and population growth from patterns of variation in the human genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2005) 102:7882–7887.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wright SI, et al. The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. Science (2005) 308:1310–1314.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wright SI, Gaut B. Molecular population genetics and the search for adaptive evolution in plants. Mol Biol Evol (2005) 22:506–519.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) OA All Versions of this Article: 2009/0/320    most recent evp031v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Email alerts Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Jensen, J. D. PubMed Articles by Jensen, J. D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

Online ISSN 1759-6653 - Print ISSN

Copyright © 2010 Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution

Oxford Journals Oxford University Press

• Site Map
• Privacy Policy
• Frequently Asked Questions

Other Oxford University Press sites: Oxford University Press Oxford Journals China Oxford Journals Japan American National Biography Booksellers' Information Service Children's Fiction and Poetry Children's Reference Corporate & Special Sales Dictionaries Dictionary of National Biography Digital Reference English Language Teaching Higher Education Textbooks Humanities International Education Unit Law Medicine Music Online Products Oxford English Dictionary Reference Rights and Permissions Science School Books Social Sciences Very Short Introductions World's Classics