Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Genetics›McDonald-Kreitman Test
Process / pipelineSelection testing

McDonald-Kreitman Test

McDonald-Kreitman Test for Detecting Adaptive Evolution · Also known as: MK test, Positive selection test

The McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test is a statistical method for detecting adaptive evolution by comparing ratios of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions within and between species. Developed by James McDonald and Martin Kreitman in 1991, this test exploits the key insight that neutral mutations accumulate at similar rates within and between species, while adaptive (nonsynonymous) substitutions should be enriched between species if they have been fixed by positive selection. The MK test has become a standard tool in molecular evolutionary biology for identifying genes under natural selection.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 3 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

McDonald-Kreitman Test
Coalescent TheoryF-statistics (FST)HKA TestSelection Sweep (Tajima'…

When to use it

Use the MK test when you have sequence data from two species and polymorphism data from at least one species, and wish to test whether a gene has experienced positive selection. It is particularly effective for protein-coding genes in organisms with available population data. The MK test works best when mutation rates are similar between species and when the species are not too distantly diverged. Avoid the test when synonymous substitution rates are elevated due to positive selection on codon usage or other non-neutral forces.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Simple to perform and interpret, requiring basic sequence alignment
  • Does not assume a specific selection model or fitness landscape
  • Compares fixed differences and polymorphisms, accounting for mutation rates
  • Can detect positive selection even when effect sizes are modest
  • Provides an estimate of the proportion of adaptive substitutions
Limitations
  • Assumes similar mutation rates between species and at synonymous sites, which may be violated
  • Limited power when synonymous substitution rates are low (few independent events)
  • Cannot pinpoint the target of selection within a gene
  • Sensitive to demographic history and population structure, which affect polymorphism ratios
  • Codon usage bias and other non-selective forces can inflate nonsynonymous substitution rates

Frequently asked

What does it mean if Dn/Ds > Pn/Ps?

This pattern suggests that nonsynonymous substitutions are overrepresented in fixed differences compared to polymorphisms. This is consistent with positive selection having fixed advantageous nonsynonymous mutations. Conversely, if Dn/Ds < Pn/Ps, it suggests purifying selection removing nonsynonymous changes.

Why are synonymous sites assumed to be neutral?

Synonymous changes do not alter amino acid sequences, so they were traditionally assumed to be invisible to selection. However, synonymous sites can affect mRNA stability, translation efficiency, and codon usage, meaning they may experience weak selection. This assumption should be checked.

Can the MK test detect weak positive selection?

Yes, if sample sizes are large. The test compares ratios, so even modest enrichment of nonsynonymous substitutions can be significant with many sites. However, power decreases as effect sizes diminish, and very weak selection may be undetectable.

How are synonymous and nonsynonymous sites counted when codons overlap or have incomplete information?

Standard approaches count potential synonymous and nonsynonymous sites based on codon positions. For example, third codon positions are often silent (synonymous), while first and second positions are typically nonsynonymous. Detailed counting accounts for wobble base pairing and degenerate codon patterns.

Sources

  1. McDonald, J. H., & Kreitman, M. (1991). Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature, 351(6328), 652–654. DOI: 10.1038/351652a0 ↗
  2. Smith, N. G., & Eyre-Walker, A. (2002). Estimating the proportion of sites subject to positive selection across a large dataset. Genetics, 160(3), 1079–1086. link ↗
  3. Charlesworth, B. (2010). The rate of adaptive evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(1), 22–26. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). McDonald-Kreitman Test for Detecting Adaptive Evolution. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/genetics/mcdonald-kreitman-test

Related methods

Coalescent TheoryF-statistics (FST)HKA TestSelection Sweep (Tajima's D)

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Coalescent TheoryGenetics↔ compare
  • F-statistics (FST)Genetics↔ compare
  • HKA TestGenetics↔ compare
  • Selection Sweep (Tajima's D)Genetics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

HKA TestSelection Sweep (Tajima's D)

Similar methods

HKA TestSelection Sweep (Tajima's D)F-statistics (FST)Phylogenetic AnalysisNetwork-based Phylogenetic AnalysisCoalescent TheoryBayesian Phylogenetic AnalysisTime-series phylogenetic analysis

Related reference concepts

Molecular Adaptation and Selection DetectionNeutral Theory of Molecular EvolutionMolecular EvolutionMolecular Population GeneticsEvolutionary Conservation and Constraint MetricsNucleotide Diversity and Variant Classification

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — McDonald-Kreitman Test (McDonald-Kreitman Test for Detecting Adaptive Evolution). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/genetics/mcdonald-kreitman-test · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
James McDonald & Martin Kreitman
Subfamily
Selection testing
Year
1991
Type
Hypothesis test
Related methods
Coalescent TheoryF-statistics (FST)HKA TestSelection Sweep (Tajima's D)
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account