ArticlePloS one2026
Near Neutral Selectionist Theories (NNST) for SARS-CoV-2 suggested by the substitution-mutation ratio (c/µ) analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A definitive test to measure genome-wide fitness effects of any nucleotide mutation, including translated regions (TRs) and untranslated regions (UTRs), is essential to help resolve the decades-long neutralist-selectionist debate regarding mutation-mediated species evolution. The precise boundary, composition, and abundance of nearly neutral mutations remain disputed, highlighting the need for a rigorous framework supported by empirical sequence data. Our substitution-mutation rate ratio test (c/μ) might provide such a framework. c/μ compares the ratio of how often mutations fix into the population (substitution rate, c) with their expected arrival (mutation rate, µ), which classifies each mutation type (c/µ > 1: adaptive; c/µ = 1: neutral; c/µ < 1: deleterious). We previously showed that SARS-CoV-2 exhibits L-shaped distributions of fitness effects (DFEs) and a strict molecular clock, and mutation type proportions consistent only with the Near-Neutral Balanced Selectionist Theory (NNBST) and not with conventional molecular evolution theories. However, a theoretical explanation for incidences of non-strict clock behavior in several SARS-CoV-2 segments are not formalized. Here, we extended c/μ analysis to 49 segments of SARS-CoV-2 (26 TRs, 12 UTRs, and 10 transcriptional regulatory sequences (TRSs)) and provide formal, mathematical frameworks for our NNBST and Near-Neutral Unbalanced Selectionist Theory (NNUST) to explain non-strict clock behavior. All 49 segments displayed L-shaped DFEs: 24 segments (mostly TRs) supported molecular clocks and balanced effects of near neutral mutations, consistent with NNBST; meanwhile, 25 segments (mostly UTRs/TRSs) did not support molecular clocks or balancing of near neutral mutations, consistent with NNUST. Numerous violations of Selectionist Theory (ST), Kimura's Neutral Theory (KNT), and Ohta's Nearly Neutral Theory (ONNT) were observed, but none for NNBST or NNUST. Together, these results support a unified Near-Neutral Selectionist Theory (NNST), combining neutral and selectionist perspectives to better explain the molecular evolution of SARS-CoV-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.