Understanding the Evolution of Defense Metabolites in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> Using Genome-wide Association Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the improvement and decline in cost of high-throughput genotyping and phenotyping technologies, genome-wide association (GWA) studies are fast becoming a preferred approach for dissecting complex quantitative traits. Glucosinolate (GSL) secondary metabolites within Arabidopsis spp. can serve as a model system to understand the genomic architecture of quantitative traits. GSLs are key defenses against insects in the wild and the relatively large number of cloned quantitative trait locus (QTL) controlling GSL traits allows comparison of GWA to previous QTL analyses. To better understand the specieswide genomic architecture controlling plant-insect interactions and the relative strengths of GWA and QTL studies, we conducted a GWA mapping study using 96 A. thaliana accessions, 43 GSL phenotypes, and approximately 230,000 SNPs. Our GWA analysis identified the two major polymorphic loci controlling GSL variation (AOP and MAM) in natural populations within large blocks of positive associations encompassing dozens of genes. These blocks of positive associations showed extended linkage disequilibrium (LD) that we hypothesize to have arisen from balancing or fluctuating selective sweeps at both the AOP and MAM loci. These potential sweep blocks are likely linked with the formation of new defensive chemistries that alter plant fitness in natural environments. Interestingly, this GWA analysis did not identify the majority of previously identified QTL even though these polymorphisms were present in the GWA population. This may be partly explained by a nonrandom distribution of phenotypic variation across population subgroups that links population structure and GSL variation, suggesting that natural selection can hinder the detection of phenotype-genotype associations in natural populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".