INTEGRATING LANDSCAPE GENOMICS AND SPATIALLY EXPLICIT APPROACHES TO DETECT LOCI UNDER SELECTION IN CLINAL POPULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncovering the genetic basis of adaptation hinges on the ability to detect loci under selection. However, population genomics outlier approaches to detect selected loci may be inappropriate for clinal populations or those with unclear population structure because they require that individuals be clustered into populations. An alternate approach, landscape genomics, uses individual-based approaches to detect loci under selection and reveal potential environmental drivers of selection. We tested four landscape genomics methods on a simulated clinal population to determine their effectiveness at identifying a locus under varying selection strengths along an environmental gradient. We found all methods produced very low type I error rates across all selection strengths, but elevated type II error rates under "weak" selection. We then applied these methods to an AFLP genome scan of an alpine plant, Campanula barbata, and identified five highly supported candidate loci associated with precipitation variables. These loci also showed spatial autocorrelation and cline patterns indicative of selection along a precipitation gradient. Our results suggest that landscape genomics in combination with other spatial analyses provides a powerful approach for identifying loci potentially under selection and explaining spatially complex interactions between species and their environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".